## wpiea2023223-print-pdf

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [wpiea2023223-print-pdf](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023223-print-pdf.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023223-print-pdf.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023223-print-pdf.pdf.json)

---

### Overview
- Primary objective: understand public views on climate change, drivers of support for mitigation policies, and levers to increase policy support, with a focus on support for carbon pricing.
- Surveys conducted across 28 advanced and emerging market economies with over 1,000 respondents interviewed in each country.
- Interviews conducted online between July 5 and August 11, 2022; respondents at least 18 years old drawn from pre-profiled YouGov panelists.
- Surveys took on average 10–12 minutes to complete; observations weighted to be representative of each country’s age, gender, education, regional profiles, employment and socioeconomic status.

### Survey design, content, and experiments
- Four-part questionnaire collecting:
  - Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, household size, education, employment, income, source of news, car ownership, use of public transportation, baseline trust in other people and government, views on role of government in economic regulation).
  - Views on seriousness and urgency of climate change, baseline awareness of key climate policies, knowledge about government climate commitments, open-ended goal question for a good climate policy, baseline support for carbon pricing and views on benefits, costs, and incidence.
  - Information experiment: randomly selected half received explanatory text on carbon pricing efficacy and innovation incentives; the other half received no extra information.
  - Incidence experiment: costs framed as personal for half the sample and general/societal for the other half; limited variation across treatment and control groups noted.
  - Preferences over revenue recycling and alternative climate policies (regulations, subsidies for low-carbon technology and renewables).
  - Perceptions of international burden sharing and views about own and community willingness to reduce energy consumption.

### Key descriptive findings
- General concern:
  - Most people surveyed were concerned about climate change.
  - In countries like the USA, Norway, or Saudi Arabia, around 70 percent of the population still considers climate change to be an issue.
  - In countries like the Philippines, South Korea, or Colombia, the share hovers above 90 percent.
- Imminence and personal effects:
  - Over 60 percent of respondents in Colombia, Mexico, and the Philippines perceive the personal effects of climate change to be imminent, compared with only 20 percent in the Netherlands or Norway.
- Baseline knowledge:
  - Despite 20 out of the 28 countries surveyed having carbon pricing policies in place, fewer respondents express prior knowledge of a carbon tax or emissions trading system compared to laws/regulations or subsidies.
- Demographic correlates:
  - Concern more prevalent among women, the educated, and those with a positive view about government regulation.
  - Respondents following traditional news sources more likely to be concerned.
  - Substantial country-level heterogeneity in demographic impacts.

### Policy-attribute drivers of carbon pricing support
- Three major predictors of support:
  1. perceived effectiveness in reducing emissions,
  2. perceived fairness or distributional burden,
  3. perceived co-benefits: improved air quality, health outcomes, and new jobs.
- Information and cost-salience effects:
  - Increasing salience of cost-of-living impacts lowers support for carbon pricing.
  - Providing information on policy effectiveness and revenue recycling opportunities can enhance support.
  - Support for subsidies to renewables declines when respondents are informed they would require tax increases or cuts in other spending.
- Revenue recycling preferences:
  - Increased support if revenues redistributed to low-income households, used to increase social spending on health care and education, or earmarked for green infrastructure and low-carbon technologies.
  - Higher-educated respondents, those with high trust in others, and supporters of government regulation more likely to favor revenue recycling.

### Behavior, social perceptions, and international views
- Willingness to change individual behavior:
  - Concern about climate change is the biggest driver of willingness to change individual behavior, followed by support for climate policies.
  - Females, more educated, and older respondents are more willing to change their own behavior while being skeptical about their community’s willingness.
  - Respondents with children and those with high trust in others view their community as more willing to change.
- International burden sharing:
  - Most respondents believe climate policy will only be effective if most countries adopt measures.
  - Majority view: all countries, not only rich ones, should pay to address climate change.
  - Preference for burden sharing based on current rather than historical emissions; more pronounced in advanced economies.

### Text analysis of open-ended goals (method and highlights)
- Open question: “What do you think a good climate policy should aim to achieve?”; just over 28,500 non-missing answers.
- Processing steps: translation to English, removal of numbers/punctuation, tokenization, lemmatization, removal of stop words and words with fewer than three letters, aggregation of synonyms, manual classification of 160 most frequent words covering over 75 percent of words.
- Topic frequencies (selected exact counts preserved):
  - Environment topic: environment 1546; tree 968; air 747; plant 745; nature 690; water 681; green 674; recycle 614; forest 560; natural 538.
  - Energy topic: energy 2259; gas 1072; fuel 829; clean 826; renewable 818; solar 342; electric 347.
  - Reduce Emissions topic: reduce 6259; emission 2783; vehicle 3232; greenhouse 675; dioxide 306.
  - Awareness / Social topic: people 1321; global 749; increase 695; government 524; encourage 518; awareness 515.
- Findings:
  - Clear preference for policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.
  - Transportation and electric power sectors frequently mentioned; transportation and electric power noted as the two largest emitters and responsible for over 50 percent of GHG emissions in the United States alone.
  - Many respondents conflate climate goals with broader environmental objectives and awareness-raising.

### Empirical methodology (main specifications and estimation)
- Main regression: y_{i,c} = β X_{i,c} + γ_c + ε_{i,c}, with country fixed effects γ_c and clustered standard errors at the country level.
- Most regressors are indicator variables; data weighted by sampling weights; some regressions estimated country-by-country.
- Rating-scale dependent variables converted to z-scores calculated country-by-country.
- Dominance analysis used to assess relative importance of groups of regressors.

### Quantitative regression highlights (selected exact coefficients and sample sizes)
- Selected coefficients (exact values preserved):
  - Female: 0.155*** (0.022) in column 1; −0.017* (0.009) in column 2.
  - Education (college): 0.171*** (0.048) in column 1; 0.054** (0.022) in column 2.
  - Car(s) in household: −0.125*** (0.022) in column 1.
  - Use public transport: 0.134*** (0.024) in column 1; 0.077*** (0.008) in col 3.
  - Supports govt. role in regulating economy: 0.545*** (0.075) in col 1.
  - Carbon pricing effective: 0.252*** (0.010) (in column 2).
  - Low-income HHs lose: −0.110*** (0.013) (in column 2).
  - Better air quality: 0.210*** (0.019) (in column 2).
  - Job losses: −0.173*** (0.016) (in column 2).
  - Efficacy information treatment: 0.147*** (0.015).
- Model fit and sample sizes:
  - Observations: 17,794 (col 1); 13,961 (col 2); 17,957 (cols 3–5).
  - R-squared: 0.124 (col 1); 0.452 (col 2); 0.040 (col 3); 0.050 (col 4); 0.034 (col 5).
  - Country fixed effects: YES in all reported columns.

### Support levels and cross-country variation (exact percent sequences preserved)
- Support for mitigation policies — percent of favorable responses by country (rows correspond to Carbon pricing; Subsidies to low-carbon technologies/renewables; Regulations limiting emissions). Numeric entries:
  - Carbon pricing row: 52   55   67   46   39   58   68   58   60   60   74 41   62   50   53   58   44 43   46 44   29   45   40   32   29   44   56   41
  - Subsidies row: 65   65   66   62   45   66   73   68   61   69   71 56   65   62   69   69   53 55   57 58   54   65   55   50   60   65   61   62
  - Regulations row: 52   50   64   44   31   53   60   48   52   56   64 48   50   50   54   56   43 35   41 44   35   40   38   34   33   43   48   44
- Regional pattern: overall support across all policies highest in Asia.
- Emerging market respondents more likely to mention environmental protection in open responses; advanced-country respondents more frequently mention emissions and the energy matrix.
- Nearly 15 percent of respondents in advanced economies say they have no opinion or do not know what a good climate policy should aim to achieve.

### Revenue recycling, information experiments, and behavioral responses
- Revenue recycling:
  - Majority prefer revenues used to help low-income households, increase social spending on healthcare and education, or fund low-carbon technologies and renewables.
  - Cross-country variation: Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Canada show higher support for offsetting cuts to other taxes; over a third in China, Australia, Vietnam, and United States support assisting workers in affected industries.
- Information treatment effects (exact estimates preserved):
  - Providing short explanatory text on carbon pricing effectiveness and co-benefits increases support for carbon pricing by almost 7 percentage points.
  - Carbon pricing information treatment effect statistically significant: z= 11.35, p= 0.00.
  - Cost-salience experiment reduces support for carbon pricing by about 9 percentage points; declines statistically significant: carbon pricing z =-28.83, p=0.00; subsidies z=-54.52, p=0.00.
  - When respondents are told subsidies would require an increase in their taxes (or a decrease in other government spending), favorable support for subsidies declines from 62 to 42 percent.
- Awareness gaps:
  - Fewer than 20 percent of respondents in Indonesia say they know what a carbon tax is.
  - Less than a quarter of respondents in several EU countries reported having heard of an emissions trading system despite its establishment in 2005.
- Behavior:
  - Over 75 percent of respondents are willing to engage in energy-saving behavior; only 51 percent think their community will act.
  - Support for carbon pricing associated with higher willingness to reduce energy consumption at both individual and perceived community levels.

### Policy-relevant implications (synthesized)
- Emphasize policy efficacy and co-benefits (air quality, public health, renewable investment) in communications—these factors plus perceived benefits account for about 45 percent of variation in support.
- Address equity and distributional concerns explicitly in policy design and communication—equity concerns account for about 20 percent of variation in support and are a stronger deterrent in emerging markets.
- Design targeted compensation or assistance for vulnerable households and small businesses to mitigate opposition rooted in affordability and distributional impacts.
- Tailor messaging and policy features to country-specific sensitivities (e.g., employment concerns in some European countries, fuel cost concerns in Germany and the United States, air-quality emphasis in Brazil, Mexico, Spain).
- Implement clear revenue-use strategies, extensive communication programs, and robust assistance for vulnerable groups as key ingredients for successful energy reforms.

### Annex and questionnaire highlights
- Annex A: Sample and representativeness tables with per-country observation counts (examples preserved: Australia 1,009; China 1,016; India 1,018; Indonesia 1,052; Japan 1,002; Korea 1,108; USA 1,017; UK 1,006; Total 28,541).
- Annex B: Figures on prior knowledge and support distributions.
- Annex C: Text analysis methodology and Table C.1 word frequencies (selected counts preserved above).
- Annex D: Full sample questionnaire covering demographics, awareness/perceptions, policy modules, randomized treatments, revenue use choices, alternative policy forms, and international responsibility questions.

*Source: IMF Working Paper — Introduction (wpiea2023223-print-pdf).*

### Introduction ...........................................................................................................

### wpiea2023223-print-pdf - Introduction

### Overview
- Table of contents lists the chapter and major sections with associated page numbers:
  - Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
  - Related Literature ........................................................................................................................................... 4
  - The Survey ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
  - Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................................................................... 8
  - Text Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 9
  - Drivers of Support for Climate Mitigating Policies ........................................................................................ 11
  - Empirical Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 11
  - Perceptions of Climate Change .................................................................................................................... 12
  - Perceptions of Climate Policies .................................................................................................................... 13
  - Support for Other Climate Policies ............................................................................................................... 18
  - Information Experiments .................................................................................................................................. 20
  - Climate Action: Community and Global Support ........................................................................................... 22
  - Carbon Pricing and International Action ....................................................................................................... 22
  - Conclusion  ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
  - References ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
  - Annex A. Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 29
  - Annex B. Additional Figures ............................................................................................................................ 33
  - Annex C. Text Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 34
  - Annex D. Sample Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................... 36

### Major themes (as indicated by section headings)
- Survey design and implementation:
  - "The Survey" (page 5)
  - "Sample Questionnaire" (Annex D, page 36)
- Empirical approach:
  - "Empirical Methodology" (page 11)
  - "Descriptive Statistics" (page 8)
  - "Annex A. Tables" (page 29)
  - "Annex B. Additional Figures" (page 33)
- Public perceptions and drivers of support:
  - "Perceptions of Climate Change" (page 12)
  - "Perceptions of Climate Policies" (page 13)
  - "Drivers of Support for Climate Mitigating Policies" (page 11)
  - "Support for Other Climate Policies" (page 18)
- Text and qualitative analysis:
  - "Text Analysis" (page 9)
  - "Annex C. Text Analysis" (page 34)
- Policy-specific topics:
  - "Information Experiments" (page 20)
  - "Climate Action: Community and Global Support" (page 22)
  - "Carbon Pricing and International Action" (page 22)
- Synthesis and references:
  - "Conclusion" (page 24)
  - "References" (page 26)

### Document components useful for ingestion and indexing
- Structured sections suitable for targeted extraction:
  - Empirical methods and data (pages 5, 8, 11, 29–33, 36)
  - Perception and support findings (pages 11–18, 20–22)
  - Textual analysis content and methods (pages 9, 34)
  - Policy discussion and experiments (pages 18–22)
- Annexes containing supporting material:
  - Tables (Annex A, page 29)
  - Figures (Annex B, page 33)
  - Text analysis details (Annex C, page 34)
  - Questionnaire instrument (Annex D, page 36)

*Source: wpiea2023223-print-pdf - Introduction (table of contents entries and page numbers as provided).*

### Introduction

### wpiea2023223-print-pdf - Introduction

### Context and objectives
- Tackling climate change is framed as an urgent and fundamental challenge; policy commitments, ambitions and implementation still lag what is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve 2015 Paris temperature goals.
- Primary objective: understand public views on climate change, drivers of support for mitigation policies, and levers to increase policy support, with a focus on support for carbon pricing.
- Carbon pricing is described as widely accepted as the most effective policy for curbing emissions and has empirical support, but political acceptability is often low.

### Survey design and timing
- Large-scale surveys conducted across 28 advanced and emerging market economies.
- Sample design: over 1,000 respondents interviewed in each country.
- Survey mode and dates: interviews conducted online between July 5 and August 11, 2022; surveys administered in the local language.
- Respondent eligibility: at least 18 years old; drawn from pre-profiled YouGov panelists.
- Data quality: questionnaire pilot-tested; standard procedures to ensure data quality and integrity applied.
- Weighting: observations weighted to be representative of each country’s age, gender, education, regional profiles, employment and socioeconomic status.
- Survey length and incentives: surveys took on average 10–12 minutes to complete; YouGov panel member incentivization program used.

### Survey content and experiments
- Four-part questionnaire collecting:
  - Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, household size, education, employment, income, source of news, car ownership, use of public transportation, baseline trust in other people and government, views on role of government in economic regulation).
  - Views on seriousness and urgency of climate change, baseline awareness of key climate policies, knowledge about government climate commitments, open-ended goal question for a good climate policy, baseline support for carbon pricing and views on benefits, costs, and incidence.
  - Information and incidence experiments: information experiment provided a short text explaining efficacy of carbon pricing to a randomly selected half of respondents; incidence experiment framed costs of carbon pricing as personal for half the sample and general/societal for the other half.
  - Preferences over revenue recycling and alternative climate policies (regulations, subsidies for low-carbon technology and renewables).
  - Perceptions of international burden sharing and views about own and community willingness to reduce energy consumption.
- Experimental design details:
  - Information experiment: randomly selected half of respondents received explanatory text on carbon pricing effectiveness and innovation incentives; the other half received no extra information.
  - Incidence experiment: personal vs general/societal framing of costs; limited variation in average responses across treatment and control groups noted.

### Key descriptive findings
- General concern:
  - Across countries, most people surveyed were concerned about climate change.
  - In countries like the USA, Norway, or Saudi Arabia, around 70 percent of the population still considers climate change to be an issue.
  - In countries like the Philippines, South Korea, or Colombia, the share hovers above 90 percent.
- Imminence and personal effects:
  - A higher share of respondents in developing economies believe climate change is already happening and personally affecting them and their families.
  - Over 60 percent of respondents in Colombia, Mexico, and the Philippines perceive the personal effects of climate change to be imminent, compared with only 20 percent in the Netherlands or Norway.
- Baseline knowledge of mitigation policies:
  - Even though 20 out of the 28 countries surveyed have carbon pricing policies in place, fewer respondents express prior knowledge of a carbon tax or emissions trading (cap-and-trade) system compared to laws and regulations or subsidies to low-carbon technology or renewable energy.
- Demographic correlates of concern:
  - Concern for climate change is more prevalent on average among women, the educated, and those with a positive view about government regulation of the economy (a proxy for political stance).
  - Respondents who report following the news are more likely to be concerned, especially those following traditional (i.e., not online) sources.
  - Substantial country-level heterogeneity: the impact of demographic characteristics on climate risk perceptions ranges from positive to negative depending on the country.

### Policy-attribute drivers of carbon pricing support
- Three key policy attributes are major predictors of support for carbon pricing:
  1. perceived effectiveness in reducing emissions,
  2. perceived fairness or distributional burden,
  3. perceived co-benefits in terms of improved air quality, health outcomes, and new jobs.
- Information effects:
  - Increasing the salience of cost-of-living impacts of carbon pricing lowers support for carbon pricing.
  - Providing information on policy effectiveness and revenue recycling opportunities can enhance support.
  - Support for subsidies for renewable energy and low-carbon technologies—the most popular policy measure—declines when respondents are informed about potential increases in taxes or cuts in other spending needed to finance these subsidies.
- Revenue recycling preferences:
  - Respondents indicated increased support for carbon pricing if revenues are redistributed to low-income households, used to increase social spending on health care and education, or earmarked to fund green infrastructure and low-carbon technologies.
  - Heterogeneity: respondents with higher educational attainment, those indicating a high level of trust in others, and those supporting a role for government intervention in the economy are more likely to favor revenue recycling.

### Behavior and social perceptions
- Willingness to change individual behavior:
  - Concern about climate change is the biggest driver of willingness to change individual behavior, followed by support for climate policies.
  - Female, more educated, and older respondents are more willing to change their own behavior while being skeptical about their community’s willingness.
  - Respondents with children and those expressing a high degree of trust in others have more positive views on their community’s commitment to change behavior.
- International burden sharing:
  - Most people surveyed believe climate policy will only be effective if most countries adopt measures to reduce carbon emissions.
  - Majority view across advanced and emerging market economies: all countries, not only rich ones, should pay to address climate change.
  - Respondents tend to agree that burden sharing should be based on current rather than historical emissions; these views are more pronounced in advanced economies.

### Text analysis of open-ended goals for climate policy
- Methodology:
  - Open question: “What do you think a good climate policy should aim to achieve?”
  - Responses translated into English and analyzed; stop words removed; tokenizing and lemmatizing applied; manual grouping for synonyms.
  - Words classified by grammatical function and verb-noun combinations analyzed.
- Findings:
  - Clear preference for policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.
  - Transportation and electric power sectors receive particular attention; noted that transportation and electric power are the two largest emitters and responsible for over 50 percent of GHG emissions in the United States alone.
  - Many respondents conflate climate goals with other environmental objectives (e.g., reducing plastic and waste, cleaning oceans and rivers) and with awareness-raising and behavioral encouragement.

### Related literature and comparative contribution
- Situates study within broader literature on attitudes toward climate change, determinants of policy support, and information effects.
- Notes that most prior studies focus on single countries or subsets of advanced economies; comparative cross-country surveys, especially including emerging market economies, are relatively scarce.
- Relation to recent cross-country work: study is closely related to Dechezleprêtre et al. (2022) but covers a larger number of emerging market economies and captures views when high energy prices were salient.

### Paper structure and data coverage
- Remainder of paper organized into sections detailing the survey instrument and sample, descriptive statistics, empirical approach and main results, and conclusions.
- Country selection highlights:
  - Includes 20 out of the top-25 largest emitters of carbon dioxide and 9 out of the 25 countries most exposed to climate change.
- Limitations noted:
  - Online survey mode may be less representative along rural-urban, education, and income lines in many emerging market countries; representativeness table provided in Annex A.
  - Incidence experiment showed limited variation and thus results are not presented in detail.

*Source: IMF Working Paper — Introduction (wpiea2023223-print-pdf).*

### 1.    Word Cloud 2.    Sankey Chart: Verb + Noun Combinations

### 1.    Word Cloud 2.    Sankey Chart: Verb + Noun Combinations

### Word cloud and Sankey chart description
- Source: IMF staff calculations based on IMF-YouGov survey.
- Panel 1 (Word Cloud): Word size and color are proportional to word frequency rank (color order: blue, red, green).
- Panel 2 (Sankey Chart): Link size is proportional to combination frequency; each pair of words in the figure appears at least 50 times in the data.
- Classification covered: the 160 most frequent words; this allows classification of over 75 percent of all words used in the dataset.
- Categories used for classification: environmental protection, reducing emissions, energy generation, raising awareness, plus a “don’t know” category.

### Topic distribution (Figure 6) — high-level findings
- Respondents from emerging market countries more frequently mention environmental protection.
- Respondents from advanced countries more frequently mention emissions and the energy matrix.
- Nearly 15 percent of respondents in advanced economies say that they have no opinion or do not know what a good climate policy should aim to achieve.

### Note on classification method
- Each of the 160 most frequent words was associated to one of the four topics; answers were counted as mentioning a topic if they included any word from that topic (answers can be counted in multiple topics).
- The authors note this process is admittedly subjective; alternative methods such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation produced similar word groupings but were harder to distinguish. Table C.1 in Annex C details the classification of each word into its respective topic.

---

### Empirical methodology
- Main regression specification:
  - y_{i,c} = β X_{i,c} + γ_c + ε_{i,c}
  - where y_{i,c} is the response for individual i in country c; X_{i,c} is a set of covariates; γ_c are country fixed-effects; ε_{i,c} is a residual.
- Most regressors X_{i,c} are indicator variables.
- Data are weighted by sampling weights aligning key demographics to the general population; standard errors are clustered at the country level.
- For some analyses regressions are estimated country-by-country (country fixed-effects excluded in those cases).
- For rating-scale dependent variables, z-scores are used (calculated country-by-country by subtracting the sample mean and dividing by the sample standard deviation).
- Dominance analysis is used when analyzing determinants of support for carbon pricing to assess relative importance of groups of regressors.

---

### Drivers of Perceptions and Support for Climate Policies

### Perceptions of climate change — key correlates
- On average, climate change concerns are more prevalent for:
  - females
  - the educated
  - those who support government’s role in regulating the economy
- Stronger concerns from respondents who follow the news, especially traditional sources (newspaper, television, radio).
- Opposition to climate policies is strongly correlated with:
  - lower availability of public transportation
  - greater reliance on cars
- Considerable cross-country heterogeneity in drivers of climate risk perceptions:
  - Climate concerns are higher among younger respondents in Australia and Canada.
  - In Argentina, older respondents are more concerned than younger ones.
  - Household income is not systematically associated with climate concern overall, but exceptions exist (Australia, the Philippines, and the United States) where high income households are less concerned than lower-income households.

### Baseline support for mitigation policies (Figure 8)
- Highest overall support observed for subsidies to low-carbon technologies and renewable energy.
- Carbon pricing and regulations on emissions have comparable levels of support across most countries.
- Regional pattern: overall support across all policies is highest in Asia.

- Support for mitigation policies — percent of favorable responses by country (rows correspond to Carbon pricing; Subsidies to low-carbon technologies/renewables; Regulations limiting emissions). Numeric entries copied verbatim as presented:
  - Carbon pricing row: 52   55   67   46   39   58   68   58   60   60   74 41   62   50   53   58   44 43   46 44   29   45   40   32   29   44   56   41
  - Subsidies to low-carbon technologies/renewables row: 65   65   66   62   45   66   73   68   61   69   71 56   65   62   69   69   53 55   57 58   54   65   55   50   60   65   61   62
  - Regulations limiting emissions row: 52   50   64   44   31   53   60   48   52   56   64 48   50   50   54   56   43 35   41 44   35   40   38   34   33   43   48   44

### Drivers of support for carbon pricing (Figure 9) — main associations
- Positive associations with support:
  - Perception that climate change is serious
  - Belief that carbon pricing is effective at reducing emissions
  - Perceived policy co-benefits: better air quality, more investment in renewables, better public health, better public transport, new low-carbon jobs, money for social goods/services
- Negative associations with support:
  - Perceived costs: higher prices, increased fuel costs, more expensive energy, job losses
  - Distributional concerns: belief that carbon pricing will harm low-income or middle-income households and small businesses reduces support
- Heterogeneity across countries:
  - Distributional concerns dampen support more in emerging markets (Brazil, India, the Philippines) than in advanced economies (the Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom).
  - Japan and Spain are exceptions within advanced economies where distributional concerns significantly lower support.
  - Perceived job losses lower support in France, Italy, Norway, and Poland.
  - Concerns about higher fuel costs more strongly lower support in Germany and the United States.
  - Improved air quality is a significant driver in Brazil, Mexico, and Spain.
  - Investment in renewable energy as a motivator is stronger in Japan, Norway, and Australia.

### Relative importance of explanatory factors (Figure 11)
- Dominance analysis — shares of overall variance explained:
  - Beliefs in the effectiveness of carbon pricing in reducing emissions and perceptions of policy benefits together account for about 45 percent of the variation in support.
  - Equity and distributional concerns account for another 20 percent of the variation.
  - Socio-economic and demographic characteristics explain less than 5 percent of the overall variation in policy views.
- Among reasons cited for opposing carbon pricing, frequently cited items include:
  - Cost, affordability, distributional concerns
  - Beliefs about lack of policy effectiveness
  - Specific responses (percentage response rates are shown in the source figure for the question “Why do you oppose a carbon pricing policy in your country?”), with notable entries such as: My country should not pay to reduce climate change; No need to reduce carbon/tackle climate change; Not politically feasible; Increases inequality; Harms economy/job losses; Costs me money; Ineffective at reducing climate change; Increases energy costs.

### Individual-level predictors of support (Figure 12 and related text)
- College-educated and employed respondents are more supportive of carbon pricing overall, although:
  - The positive relationship with education is reversed in Korea and Japan.
- Support is stronger among individuals who express more trust in other people and those who support a governmental role in regulating the economy.
- Opposition is higher among females, driven primarily by the emerging markets subsample; not significant in advanced economies.
- Greater reliance on cars correlates with reduced support, primarily in advanced economies such as Italy, Germany, and the United States.
- Use of public transportation correlates with lower support in countries such as Argentina, Singapore, and the United Kingdom.
- While statistically significant, socio-economic and demographic characteristics account for a small share of the variation (less than 5 percent).

---

### Policy-relevant implications (synthesized from findings)
- Emphasize policy efficacy and co-benefits (air quality, public health, renewable investment) in communications—these factors explain a large share of support variance (about 45 percent when combined with perceived benefits).
- Address equity and distributional concerns explicitly in policy design and communication—equity concerns account for about 20 percent of variation in support and are a more important deterrent in emerging markets.
- Design targeted compensation or assistance for vulnerable households and small businesses to mitigate opposition rooted in affordability and distributional impacts.
- Tailor messaging and policy features to country-specific sensitivities (e.g., employment concerns in some European countries, fuel cost concerns in Germany and the United States, air-quality emphasis in Brazil, Mexico, Spain).
- Implement clear revenue-use strategies, extensive communication programs, and robust assistance for vulnerable groups as key ingredients for successful energy reforms (consistent with findings referenced in the source).

*Source: IMF staff calculations based on IMF-YouGov survey (material from “Public Support for Climate Change Mitigation Policies”).*

### 2. Cross-Country Heterogeneity

### 2. Cross-Country Heterogeneity

### Revenue recycling and public support for carbon pricing
- Carbon pricing is among the least popular mitigation policies initially, but support increases if revenues are recycled.
- Three broad revenue recycling strategies in the literature: earmarking for emission reduction projects, redistribution to reduce fiscal regressivity, and reducing other taxes to achieve revenue-neutral outcomes.
- Majority of respondents prefer revenues to be used to:
  - help harder-hit, low-income households;
  - increase social spending on healthcare and education;
  - be earmarked for low-carbon technologies and renewables.
- Cross-country variation highlighted:
  - In Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Canada, a high share of respondents also support offsetting cuts to other taxes.
  - Over a third of respondents in China, Australia, Vietnam, and United States support assisting workers in affected industries.
- Regression evidence:
  - Wealthier, more educated individuals tend to favor using revenues to fund renewable energy and low-carbon technologies compared to lower income and less educated individuals.
  - Respondents more supportive of the government’s regulation of the economy are more likely to support revenue recycling to help low-income households.
- Implementation detail note: earmarking revenues transparently improves acceptability, though it may not be first best economically.

### Support for other climate policies and reasons for opposition
- Subsidies for low-carbon technologies and renewables are the most favored policy across countries; in Europe and the United States it is the only policy supported by over half the respondents.
- Reasons for opposing subsidies or regulations:
  - Costs of living concerns are the most frequently cited reason for opposition to subsidies and regulations.
  - Other concerns include corruption, policy effectiveness, unfair advantage to some firms (for subsidies), and enforcement/monitoring difficulties (for regulations).
- Empirical point: among respondents who do not support subsidies, cost-of-living concerns are cited first.

### Information experiments and effects on policy support
- Three experiments assessed impact of information on support for carbon pricing:
  - Providing a short paragraph describing carbon pricing effectiveness and co-benefits increases support for carbon pricing by almost 7 percentage points.
  - The information mainly shifts neutral or negative views toward favorable stances.
  - The information treatment has larger effects in countries with little preexisting knowledge of carbon taxes.
- Cost-salience experiment:
  - Making personal cost implications salient reduces support for carbon pricing by about 9 percentage points.
  - When respondents are told subsidies would require an increase in their taxes (or a decrease in other government spending), favorable support for subsidies declines from 62 to 42 percent.
- Awareness gaps:
  - Fewer than 20 percent of respondents in Indonesia say they know what a carbon tax is.
  - Less than a quarter of respondents in several EU countries reported having heard of an emissions trading system despite its establishment in 2005.
- Methodological note: the carbon pricing information treatment effect is statistically significant (z= 11.35, p= 0.00). Declines in support when costs are emphasized are statistically significant (carbon pricing: z =-28.83, p=0.00; subsidies: z=-54.52, p=0.00).

### Individual and community willingness to act; international cooperation
- Personal vs perceived community action:
  - Over 75 percent of respondents are willing to engage in energy-saving behavior.
  - Only 51 percent of respondents think their community will act.
- Correlates of willingness:
  - Females, older, and more educated respondents report higher personal willingness to act and are more skeptical about community intentions.
  - Higher trust in people correlates with more positive views about community willingness to act.
  - Having children and owning a car correlate with expecting community action rather than personal action; regular public transport users show the opposite.
  - Support for carbon pricing is associated with higher willingness to reduce energy consumption at both individual and perceived community levels.
  - Climate risk perceptions incline people to take individual action rather than relying on community action.
- International cooperation views:
  - A vast majority think climate policy will only be effective if most countries adopt measures—ranging from around 60 percent in Japan to 80 percent in the United Kingdom.
  - Most respondents in both advanced and emerging market economies think that all countries, not only rich ones, should pay to address climate change.
  - A large share of respondents in most countries prefer burden sharing based on current emissions rather than historical emissions; this preference difference is more pronounced in advanced economies.

### Key empirical findings and policy-relevant conclusions
- Heterogeneity:
  - Significant heterogeneity in climate risk perceptions and policy preferences across individuals and countries.
  - Respondents in emerging market economies tend to see climate change as a bigger problem and are more supportive of mitigation policies.
  - Concerns about climate change are higher among women and correlated with educational attainment and support for government intervention.
- Drivers of low support for carbon pricing:
  - Concerns about rising energy prices, perceived ineffectiveness in reducing climate change, and perceived regressiveness on low-income households.
- Policy implications:
  - Carbon pricing can be made more acceptable if implemented in a “fairer” way, including revenue recycling to address regressivity and citizens’ main concerns.
  - Preferences for revenue recycling are contextual and vary across and within countries; design should account for these differences.
  - Providing information on effectiveness, co-benefits, and revenue recycling options can increase support, while highlighting personal costs decreases support.
  - Improving public awareness of carbon pricing and policy co-benefits can be critical to shaping public views and securing buy-in for mitigation policies.

*Source: IMF Staff calculations based on IMF-YouGov survey, as reported in IMF Working Papers — Public Support for Climate Change Mitigation Policies (2. Cross-Country Heterogeneity).*

### References

### wpiea2023223-print-pdf - References

### Bibliographic Sources Cited
- The references list includes empirical studies, working papers, IMF publications, OECD and NBER working papers, Pew Research Center and UN reports, and journal articles on topics such as carbon pricing, public support for climate policies, energy subsidy reform, and public opinion on climate change. Notable authors and outlets include Abrell et al. 2022; Andersson 2019; Baranzini & Carattini 2017; Clements et al. 2013; Dabla‑Norris et al. 2023; Klenert et al. 2018; Parry 2019; Parry, Black & Zhunussova 2022; and various Nature Climate Change and Review of Environmental Economics and Policy articles.

### Annex A — Survey Sample and Representativeness
- Table A.1. List of Countries: 28 countries included with per-country observations for each survey:
  - Example country observation counts (exact values preserved): Australia 1,009; China 1,016; India 1,018; Indonesia 1,052; Japan 1,002; Korea 1,108; USA 1,017; UK 1,006; Total 28,541.
- Table A.2. Sample Representativeness: Contains country-level comparisons of Population vs Sample shares for demographic categories including Age: 15-24 (%), Age: 25-64 (%), Age: 65+ (%), Male (% of total population), Employment (% 15+), Tertiary Education (At least Bachelor's). Examples of exact entries (as formatted in the source):
  - Argentina: 49.5 48.5 53.8 49.3 24.8 43.4 19.8 14.8 63.5 74.4 15.2 10.7
  - United States: 49.5 48.5 57.4 49.1 37.5 36.3 16.3 11.8 64.8 71.0 20.8 17.2
  - (Table presents many such country-row numeric sequences for all 28 countries.)

### Annex A — Main Regression Results (Table A.3)
- Regression structure:
  - Dependent variables are the z-scores of individual responses to climate Q4 (col 1), Q15a & Q15b (col 2), Q18_1 (col 3), Q18_4 (col 4), Q18_4 (col 5).
  - Standard errors clustered at the country level. HH = household. *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.
- Selected coefficients and standard errors (exact values preserved):
  - Age (35-54): 0.006 (0.025); −0.027 (0.021); 0.006 (0.010); 0.003 (0.009); −0.002 (0.009).
  - Age (55+): −0.003 (0.044); −0.004 (0.025); 0.054*** (0.015); 0.067*** (0.016); 0.023* (0.013).
  - Female: 0.155*** (0.022); −0.017* (0.009); 0.022** (0.011); −0.005 (0.011); 0.039*** (0.010).
  - Education (college): 0.171*** (0.048); 0.054** (0.022); 0.035** (0.015); 0.119*** (0.009); 0.054*** (0.012).
  - Car(s) in household: −0.125*** (0.022); −0.034* (0.016); −0.013 (0.013); −0.001 (0.009); −0.006 (0.008).
  - Use public transport: 0.134*** (0.024); −0.026 (0.017); 0.077*** (0.008); 0.078*** (0.009); 0.082*** (0.008).
  - Supports govt. role in regulating economy: 0.545*** (0.075); 0.161*** (0.018); 0.136*** (0.018); 0.127*** (0.019); 0.113*** (0.016).
- Perceived impacts and efficacy variables (exact values preserved):
  - Carbon pricing effective: 0.252*** (0.010) (in column 2).
  - Low-income HHs lose: −0.110*** (0.013) (in column 2).
  - Middle-income HHs lose: −0.086*** (0.010) (in column 2).
  - High-income HHs lose: −0.031*** (0.010) (in column 2).
  - Small businesses lose: −0.045*** (0.007) (in column 2).
  - Large corporations lose: 0.054*** (0.009) (in column 2).
- Co‑benefits and disbenefits (exact values preserved, appearing in column 2):
  - Better air quality: 0.210*** (0.019).
  - Less road congestion: 0.071*** (0.016).
  - Better public health: 0.104*** (0.017).
  - More investment in renewables: 0.176*** (0.015).
  - Higher prices: −0.078*** (0.019).
  - Job losses: −0.173*** (0.016).
- Experimental treatment and awareness (exact values preserved):
  - Heard of climate policies: 0.127*** (0.042).
  - Climate change serious: 0.210*** (0.012).
  - Climate change affects you: 0.052*** (0.008).
  - Efficacy information treatment: 0.147*** (0.015).
- Model fit and sample sizes (exact values preserved):
  - Observations: 17,794 (col 1); 13,961 (col 2); 17,957 (cols 3–5).
  - R-squared: 0.124 (col 1); 0.452 (col 2); 0.040 (col 3); 0.050 (col 4); 0.034 (col 5).
- Country fixed effects: YES in all reported columns.

### Annex B — Figures (Survey Distributions)
- Figure B.1. Prior Knowledge of Climate Mitigation Policies:
  - Displays percent of responses (multiple answers possible) to “Which, if any, of the following ways of reducing climate change have you previously heard of? Please select all that apply”.
  - Note: Blue denotes higher values.
- Figure B.2. Support for Carbon Pricing:
  - Shows percent of responses to “Thinking about all the impacts of a carbon pricing policy, to what extent do you support or oppose such a policy in your country?”
  - Includes country-level distributions labelled Support / Oppose / Neutral/don't know; includes numeric breakdowns for policy awareness items such as Carbon tax, Cap-and-trade or emissions trading systems, Law and regulations limiting carbon emissions, Subsidizing renewable energy sources (country-level percentage values present in the figure).

### Annex C — Text Analysis Methodology and Topic Word Frequencies
- Open-ended question analyzed: “What do you think a good climate policy should aim to achieve?” (Q8).
- Sample size: just over 28,500 non-missing answers.
- Data cleaning steps (exact procedures preserved):
  - Removal of numerical and special characters and punctuation.
  - Identification of “don’t know” answers via strings such as “don’t know,” “don't know,” “dont know,” “do not know,” “not known,” “not sure,” “no idea,” “no clue,” “am uncertain,” “am not certain,” or “idk,” with a 15-word threshold to avoid misclassification of longer answers.
  - Tokenization (split into single words), lemmatization to base forms, removal of stop words, removal of words with fewer than three letters, and removal of any word that appears in the question text.
  - Aggregation of frequently used synonymous phrases (examples preserved): “reuse” and “recycle”; “use less,” “cut,” “minimize,” “reduce use,” and “reduction” → “reduce”; “take care” and “protect”; “raise” and “increase”; “ensure” and “encourage”; “eliminate” and “stop”; “develop” and “build”; “car” and “vehicle”; “pay attention” and “increase awareness”.
- Table C.1. Words Classified into Each Topic — selected word frequencies (exact values preserved):
  - Environment topic: environment 1546; tree 968; air 747; plant 745; nature 690; water 681; green 674; recycle 614; forest 560; natural 538; deforestation 324; recycling 284; protection 282; preserve 255; garbage 191; river 180; sustainability 180; conservation 180; reforestation 167; sea 167; planting 156; animal 151.
  - Energy topic: energy 2259; gas 1072; fuel 829; clean 826; renewable 818; solar 342; wind 211; electric 347; power 375; generation 195; electricity 170; nuclear 177; coal 162; burn 149.
  - Reduce Emissions topic: reduce 6259; emission 2783; vehicle 3232; greenhouse 675; dioxide 306; footprint 228; zero 363; ban 169; regulate 156; regulation 148.
  - Awareness / Social topic: people 1321; global 749; increase 695; government 524; encourage 518; country 515; awareness 515; public 442; promote 306; citizen 242; education 163; law 205; consumption 365; population 261.
- Note included in the source: some frequent words (e.g., “warming” mentioned 619 times; “need” 468; “possible” 451) are not classified because they are too broad.

*Source: References, Annex A–C and Tables/Figures from the IMF staff document (IMF-YouGov survey basis) as provided in the content unit.*

### Annex D. Sample Questionnaire

### Annex D. Sample Questionnaire

### Demographic Questions
- Base: all
- [Q1] Age:
- [Q2] Gender:
- [Q3] What is your highest completed education?
  - <1> I did not complete any formal education
  - <2> Early childhood education
  - <3> Primary education
  - <4> Lower secondary education (GCSEs or equivalent level)
  - <5> Upper secondary education (A-Levels or baccalaureate)
  - <6> Post-secondary, non-tertiary education (generally vocational/ professional qualification of 1-2 years, e.g. college, trade school)
  - <7> Short-cycle tertiary education (vocational education and training, studying towards a non-academic degree, e.g., nursing/ teaching diploma)
  - <8> Bachelors or equivalent level degree
  - <9> Masters or equivalent level degree
  - <10> Doctoral or equivalent level degree
- [Q4] What is your gross household income?
  - <1> Less than $10,000
  - <2> $10,000 - $14,999
  - <3> $15,000 - $19,999
  - <4> $20,000 - $24,999
  - <5> $25,000 - $29,999
  - <6> $30,000 - $39,999
  - <7> $40,000 - $49,999
  - <8> $50,000 - $59,999
  - <9> $60,000 - $69,999
  - <10> $70,000 - $79,999
  - <11> $80,000 - $99,999
  - <12> $100,000 - $119,999
  - <13> $120,000 - $149,999
  - <14> $150,000 or more
  - <15> Prefer not to say
- [Q5] Current marital or relationship status
  - <1> Married
  - <2> Never married
  - <3> Single
  - <5> Divorced
  - <6> Widowed
  - <7> Separated
  - <8> Domestic / civil partnership
  - <97 fixed> Other
  - <999 fixed> Prefer not to say
- [Q6] How many of the people in your household are under 18?
- [Q7] How many people, including yourself, are there in your household? Please include both adults and children.
- [Q8] Current employment status
  - <1> Working full time
  - <2> Working part time
  - <3> Temporarily laid off
  - <4> Retired
  - <5> Permanently disabled
  - <6> Homemaker
  - <5> Student
  - <8> Unemployed
  - <97> Other
  - <99> Prefer not to say
- [Q9] State/Region of Residence
  - <1> South
  - <2> Northeast
  - <3> Midwest
  - <4> West
- [Q10] How many cars do you personally own or lease?
  - <1> One
  - <2> Two
  - <3> Three or more
  - <98> Don't know
  - <99> Not applicable - I do not own a car
- [Q11] Which modes of transport have you used in the last 12 months? (select all that apply)
  - <1> Walking/ Cycling
  - <2> Car/ personal vehicle
  - <3> Taxi or ride sharing
  - <4> Net: Public transport
  - <5> No transport used in the last 12 months
- [Q12] Primary source of news (select ONE)
  - A printed copy of a newspaper/ magazine
  - A newspaper's/ magazine's website
  - A news website not associated with a newspaper/ magazine
  - A news app on a mobile or tablet device
  - Email newsletters or RSS feeds
  - Social network websites
  - Blogs not associated with major media organizations
  - Television
  - Radio
  - None of the above
  - Don't know
  - Not applicable- I don't follow the news
- [Q13] Self-described social class (single choice)
  - Lower Class or Poor
  - Working Class
  - Middle Class
  - Upper-middle Class
  - Upper Class

### Climate Questions — Awareness and Perceptions
- Base: all
- Prefatory definition: "This survey is on the topic of climate change. By climate change we mean long-term changes in global weather patterns..." (explanatory paragraph retained)
- [Q4] How serious of a problem is climate change?
  - <1> A very serious problem
  - <2> A fairly serious problem
  - <3> Not a very serious problem
  - <4> Not a problem at all
  - <98> Don’t know
- [Q5] How is climate change affecting people around the world?
  - <1> Climate change is affecting people around the world right now
  - <2> Climate change isn’t affecting people right now, but will within the next 5 to 10 years
  - <3> Climate change isn’t affecting people right now, but will over 10 years from now
  - <4> Climate change won’t ever affect people
  - <98> Don’t know
- [Q6] How will climate change affect you or your family?
  - <1> Climate change is affecting me or my family right now
  - <2> Climate change isn’t affecting me or my family right now, but will within the next 5 to 10 years
  - <3> Climate change isn’t affecting me or my family right now, but will over 10 years from now
  - <4> Climate change won’t ever affect me or my family
  - <98> Don’t know
- [Q7] As far as you know, has your government made a commitment to take action to reduce climate change?
  - <1> Yes
  - <2> No
  - <98> Don’t know
- [Q8] What do you think a good climate (mitigation) policy should aim to achieve? (open)
- [Q9] Which of the following have you previously heard of? (select all that apply)
  - <1> Carbon tax
  - <2> Cap and trade or emissions trading systems
  - <3> Law and regulations limiting carbon emissions (e.g., emissions standards for industry, vehicles, efficiency standards for appliances etc.)
  - <4> Subsidizing renewable energy sources (e.g., producing more electricity from water, wind, and solar power) and low-carbon technologies
  - <99> None of the above

### Policy Modules — Descriptions and Evaluation
- Policy framing: Respondents shown short explanatory text for each policy type before answering effectiveness/support questions.
- Carbon pricing introduction: "government charging companies for the amount of greenhouse gas... generally referred to as a 'carbon pricing' policy."
- [Q10] How would you rate the effectiveness of this policy at reducing climate change?
  - <1> Very effective
  - <2> Fairly effective
  - <3> Not very effective
  - <4> Not at all effective
  - <98> Don’t know

#### Perceived co-benefits and harms of carbon pricing (random half-samples)
- Base: randomly selected half
- [Q11a] Personal benefits of carbon pricing (select all that apply)
  - <1> Better air quality
  - <2> Less road congestion
  - <3> Better public health
  - <4> More money raised for social goods and services (e.g. hospitals, schools)
  - <5> More investment/research on renewable energy production
  - <6> Better public transport
  - <7> New low-carbon jobs
  - <95> Other (open [Q11a_open])
  - <97> None – there are no benefits of a carbon price for me
  - <98> Don’t know
- [Q11b] Community benefits of carbon pricing (select all that apply)
  - <1> Better air quality
  - <2> Less road congestion
  - <3> Better public health
  - <4> More money raised for social goods and services (e.g. hospitals, schools)
  - <5> More investment/research on renewable energy production
  - <6> Better public transport
  - <7> New low-carbon jobs
  - <95> Other (open [Q11b_open])
  - <97> None – there are no benefits of a carbon price for my community
  - <98> Don’t know
- [Q12a] Personal negative impacts of carbon pricing (select all that apply)
  - <1> Higher prices for goods and services in general
  - <2> Increased fuel / petrol costs
  - <3> More expensive energy or heating
  - <4> Job losses and unemployment
  - <5> More inequality
  - <95> Other (open [Q12a_open])
  - <97> None – there are no negative impacts of a carbon pricing policy for me
  - <98> Don’t know
- [Q12b] Community negative impacts of carbon pricing (select all that apply)
  - <1> Higher prices for goods and services in general
  - <2> Increased fuel / petrol costs
  - <3> More expensive energy or heating
  - <4> Job losses and unemployment
  - <5> More inequality
  - <95> Other (open [Q12b_open])
  - <97> None – there are no negative impacts of a carbon pricing policy for my community
  - <98> Don’t know

- [Q13] To what extent do you think the following will gain or lose from a carbon pricing policy?
  - Targets:
    - [Q13_1] Low-income households
    - [Q13_2] Middle income households
    - [Q13_3] High income households
    - [Q13_4] Small businesses
    - [Q13_5] Large corporations
  - Response options:
    - <1> Gain a lot
    - <2> Gain a little
    - <3> Neither gain anything or lose anything
    - <4> Lose a little
    - <5> Lose a lot
    - <98> Don’t know

#### Randomized additional information and overall support
- Additional information text: carbon pricing can provide incentives to decarbonize, encourage innovation, and generate substantial revenue for assistance, tax cuts, clean energy investment, or other uses.
- Base: randomly selected half (with additional information)
  - [Q15a] Support for carbon pricing (with additional information)
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know
- Base: randomly selected half (no additional information)
  - [Q15b] Support for carbon pricing (no additional information)
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know

### Opposition Reasons and Hypotheticals
- Base: those who oppose carbon pricing policies
  - [Q16] Reasons for opposition (select all that apply)
    - <1> It’s ineffective at reducing climate change
    - <2> It harms the economy / causes job losses
    - <3> It costs me money
    - <4> It increases energy costs
    - <5> It’s not politically feasible / won’t be supported
    - <6> It increases inequality in society
    - <7> We do not need to reduce the amount of carbon we use / do not need to tackle climate change
    - <8> My country should not be paying to reduce climate change – other countries should
    - <95> Other (open [Q16_open])
    - <98> Don’t know

- Hypothetical trade-offs (random half-samples)
  - [Q17a] If policy lowers greenhouse gases but increases cost of living (general): support?
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know
  - [Q17b] If policy lowers greenhouse gases but increases your cost of living: support?
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know

- [Q18] Which revenue uses would increase your support for carbon pricing? (select up to three)
  - <1> Helping low-income households deal with higher costs of living
  - <2> Reducing other taxes on individuals
  - <3> Reducing other taxes on businesses
  - <4> Funding climate-related projects such as renewable energy and green technology
  - <5> Funding social services such as healthcare and education
  - <6> Assisting workers in industries that may lose out as a result of the tax
  - <95> Other (open [Q18_open])
  - <98> Don’t know
  - <99> None of the above

- Job-impact hypotheticals (random half-samples)
  - [Q19a] If policy lowers greenhouse gases but decreases the number of jobs in carbon-intensive sectors (general): support?
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know
  - [Q19b] If policy lowers greenhouse gases but decreases jobs in your area/neighborhood: support?
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know

### Alternative Policy Forms: Emissions Trading, Carbon Tax, Subsidies, Regulations
- Emissions trading (cap-and-trade) description: permits bought/sold; companies may pass costs to consumers.
  - [Q20] Support for an emissions trading system
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know
- Carbon tax description: fuel suppliers pay a tax on carbon content or CO2 emissions; costs may be passed to consumers.
  - [Q22] Support for carbon taxes
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know
- Subsidies to renewable energy and low-carbon technologies description: government subsidies and/or tax breaks to encourage research and switching to cleaner energy.
  - [Q24] Support for subsidies to renewable energy and low-carbon technologies
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know
  - Base: those who oppose renewable subsidies
    - [Q25] Reasons for opposition (select all that apply)
      - <1> It’s ineffective at reducing climate change
      - <2> It can give some firms an unfair advantage
      - <3> The costs are borne by taxpayers
      - <4> The government should not be picking winners and losers
      - <5> It’s not politically feasible/ won’t be supported
      - <6> It could increase corruption/ lobbying
      - <7> My country should not be paying to reduce climate change – other countries should
      - <8> We do not need to reduce the amount of carbon we use/ do not need to tackle climate change
      - <95> Other (open [Q25_open])
      - <99> Don't know
  - [Q26a] If subsidies increase clean energy use but are paid for through increased taxes or decreased spending (general): support?
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know
  - [Q26b] If subsidies increase clean energy use but are paid for through increased taxes that you pay or reduced spending you benefit from: support?
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know

- Laws and regulations limiting carbon emissions description: emission standards, fuel economy, energy efficiency standards; may raise costs.
  - [Q30] Support for regulation to limit emissions
    - <1> Strongly support
    - <2> Somewhat support
    - <3> Neither support nor oppose
    - <4> Somewhat oppose
    - <5> Strongly oppose
    - <98> Don’t know
  - Base: those who oppose laws to regulate emissions
    - [Q31] Reasons for opposition (select all that apply)
      - <1> It’s ineffective at reducing climate change
      - <2> It might not apply to all relevant sectors
      - <3> They might increase the cost of living
      - <4> They are difficult to enforce/monitor
      - <5> It’s not politically feasible / won’t be supported
      - <6> It could increase corruption/lobbying
      - <7> The government should not interfere in the market
      - <8> They can be burdensome for companies and households
      - <9> My country should not be paying to reduce climate change – other countries should
      - <10> We do not need to reduce the amount of carbon we use / do not need to tackle climate change
      - <95> Other (open [Q31_open])
      - <99> Don't know

### Beliefs on International Responsibility and Willingness to Act
- [q27] Agreement items
  - [q27_1] Policies to reduce carbon emissions will lead to new scientific breakthroughs and new industries
  - [q27_2] Climate change policy will only be effective if most countries adopt measures to reduce carbon emissions
  - Response options:
    - <1> Strongly agree
    - <2> Slightly agree
    - <3> Neither agree nor disagree
    - <4> Slightly disagree
    - <5> Strongly disagree
    - <98> Don’t know
- [Q28a] Should countries pay based on current or accumulated historic emissions?
  - <1> Contributions should be based on current carbon emissions
  - <2> Contributions should be based on accumulated historic carbon emissions
  - <99> Don’t know
- [Q28b] Which countries should be paying to reduce carbon emissions?
  - <1> Only rich countries should contribute to reduce carbon emissions
  - <2> All countries should contribute to reduce carbon emissions
  - <99> Don’t know
- [Q29a] How willing are you to reduce the amount of energy you use to help reduce climate change?
  - <1> Very willing
  - <2> Fairly willing
  - <3> Not very willing
  - <4> Not at all willing
  - <98> Don’t know
- [Q29b] How willing do you think people in your community are to reduce energy use?
  - <1> Very willing
  - <2> Fairly willing
  - <3> Not very willing
  - <4> Not at all willing
  - <98> Don’t know

*Public Support for Climate Change Mitigation Policies: A Cross-Country Survey — Working Paper No. WP/2023/223*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023223-print-pdf.pdf_