People with more trust are more accepting of costly policies, and it seems political trust makes people more confident that costs will be compensated by benefits. Because most people are distrusting, however, costly policies are unpopular--even policies experts recommend, like taxes.
(4/n)

In this new paper, we present one of the largest ever studies of public support for different climate policies--16 policies, 6000+ respondents in four countries (DE ES PL SE), and a survey experiment that makes a big contribution to our understanding of why people prefer the policies they do.
(1/n)

Yeah, so this paper focused exclusively on whataboutism, but hopefully soon I will be able to provide an answer from a published study. :)

Glad you found it interesting!

Climate whataboutism and rightwing populism: how emissions blame-shifting translates nationalist attitudes into climate policy opposition by Joakim Kulin
Pages: 979-999
doi.org/10.1080/0964...

You might find this @environmentalpol.bsky.social study interesting, focusing on public opinion on the linkage between climate whataboutism and nationalism. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

No, scientists (and research more broadly, incl. funding) focusing more on how bad it is getting (mainly physical sciences) rather than how we stop it (mainly social sciences).

We all know it will get (really) bad.

I guess I am not primarily thinking about ”social movements” (sorry for the particular wording) but rather scientists aiming to move reality. If that makes sense.

Haha ok.

Yes, I now agree that metric is inflated. However, I am not trying to make a purely scientific point but rather shift the perspective. Knowing some public opinion research on the topic, the target audience does not like/want carbon taxes (internalize the costs), and this needs to change.