Search

Adverse consequences of climate change often affect people and places far away from those that have the greatest capacity for mitigation. Several correlational and some experimental studies suggest that the willingness to take mitigation actions may diminish with increasing distance. However, the empirical findings are ambiguous. In order to investigate if and how socio-spatial distance to climate change effects plays a role for the willingness to engage in mitigation actions, we conducted an online experiment with a German population sample (n = 383). We find that the willingness to sign a petition for climate protection was significantly reduced when a person in India with a name of Indian origin was affected by flooding, as compared to a person in Germany with a name of German origin. Distance did not affect donating money to climate protection or approving of mitigation policies. Our results provide evidence for the existence of a negative effect of distance to climate change consequences on the willingness to engage in low-cost mitigation actions. Investigating explanations for such an effect, we find that it can be attributed to the spatial rather than the social dimension of distance. Moreover, we find some cautious evidence that people with strong racist attitudes react differently to the distance manipulations, suggesting a form of environmental racism that could also reduce mitigation action in the case of climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strong public support is a prerequisite for ambitious and thus costly climate change mitigation policy, and strong public concern over climate change is a prerequisite for policy support. Why, then, do most public opinion surveys indicate rather high levels of concern and rather strong policy support, while de facto mitigation efforts in most countries remain far from ambitious? One possibility is that survey measures for public concern fail to fully reveal the true attitudes of citizens due to social desirability bias. In this paper, we implemented list-experiments in representative surveys in Germany and the United States (N = 3620 and 3640 respectively) to assess such potential bias. We find evidence that people systematically misreport, that is, understate their disbelief in human caused climate change. This misreporting is particularly strong amongst politically relevant subgroups. Individuals in the top 20% of the income distribution in the United States and supporters of conservative parties in Germany exhibit significantly higher climate change skepticism according to the list experiment, relative to conventional measures. While this does not definitively mean that climate skepticism is a widespread phenomenon in these countries, it does suggest that future research should reconsider how climate change concern is measured, and what subgroups of the population are more susceptible to misreporting and why. Our findings imply that public support for ambitious climate policy may be weaker than existing survey research suggests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many studies have analysed the environmental impact of vegan, vegetarian, or reduced meat diets. To date, literature has not evaluated how diet shifts affect environmental impacts by utilising portfolios which reflect personal nutrition preferences. Further, changing diets could alter the available land for non-food uses. This paper defines novel diet portfolios to outline alternative diet transitions and choices within the population and finds their effect on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primary energy use, and land use in Germany. The aim of this study is to capture how these diet shifts affect land availability and increase the options for land-based climate change mitigation strategies. To do so, a contextualisation is made to compare the use of freed-up land for afforestation or biomethane production (with and without carbon capture and storage). The investigated diet portfolios lead to a reduction of the investigated impacts (GHG emissions: 7–67%; energy use: 5–46%; land use: 6–64%). Additionally, afforestation of freed-up land from each diet portfolio leads to further emission removals of 4–37%. In comparison, using the land to produce energy crops for biomethane production could lead to 2–23% further CO2-eq emission reductions when replacing fossil methane. If biomethane production is paired with carbon capture and storage, emission abatement is increased to 3–34%. This research indicates various short-term pathways to reduce GHG emissions with portfolio diet shifts. Utilising freed-up land for climate change mitigation strategies could prove essential to meet climate targets, but trade-offs with, e.g. biodiversity and ecosystem services exist and should be considered. • Diet portfolios are used to represent realistic population diets. • Diet portfolios include a mixture of 12 different diets. • GHG emissions decrease by 67% if the population adopts a Vegan diet. • Afforestation removes almost double the emissions compared to biomethane. • BECCS has similar GHG abatement to afforestation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]