Cross-country evidence on the determinants of public acceptability of fossil fuel and meat rationing

Abstract Consumption of transportation fuels and red meat is a major contributor to climate change. The difficulties in implementing price-based instruments to address the climate impact of these goods have led several researchers and government authorities to float the idea of using rationing. However, little attention has been devoted to understanding what the general public thinks about such prescriptive measures and, of this work, none have explored the individual-level mechanisms behind the acceptability of climate-motivated rationing. Utilizing original large-scale survey data from five countries, this study examines how political ideology and perceived fairness, effectiveness, and intrusiveness of government intervention are related to the public acceptability of fossil fuel and meat rationing. It is demonstrated that these factors explain variation in the acceptability of fuel and meat rationing among respondents in the US and Germany, slightly so in Brazil, but to a lesser extent among respondents in India and South Africa. In contrast to prior research, perceived intrusiveness has a particularly strong impact on attitudes towards rationing, trumping the effects of perceived fairness and effectiveness. Political ideology is predictive of acceptability of fuel rationing in all countries but South Africa, while it explains less or no attitudinal variation regarding meat rationing. The findings contribute to expanding the current literature which has almost exclusively focused on public opinion of carbon taxes. Particularly, the cross-country differences add important nuances about these key determinants, raising questions over the universality of prior scientific insights and prompting further research in culturally and politically diverse contexts.