Abstract
Decarbonization policies are frequently combined with other policies to increase public support or address related societal issues. To investigate the consequences of policy bundling, we conducted a survey experiment with 2,521 U.S. adults. We examined the effects of bundling decarbonization with policies favored by liberals (social justice and economic redistribution), broad bipartisan coalitions (infrastructure), and conservatives (pausing EPA regulations) on public support and polarization. Bundling with pausing EPA regulations decreased support and polarization by reducing liberal support without significantly increasing conservative support. Bundling with social justice decreased support while increasing polarization by reducing conservative support without significantly increasing liberal support. Bundling with economic redistribution and infrastructure did not significantly change support or polarization. Policy bundling thus risks decreasing public support for decarbonization policies by alienating one ideological side of the electorate without gaining support from the other side. This risk exists even when policy bundling reduces polarization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Raw data is subject to controlled access. Participants in this study consented to their data being stored securely with the research team and did not consent to their data being shared. Code for data analysis is available on request.
Notes
How does bundling climate policies with economic and social policies affect voter support? https://aspredicted.org/53Y_557 (2022).
References
Achen CH, Bartels LM (2016) Democracy for realists. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882731
Anderson SE, Butler DM, Harbridge-Yong L (2020) Rejecting compromise: legislators’ fear of primary voters. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108768375
American National Election Studies (2021) ANES 2020 time series study full release [dataset and documentation]. February 10, 2022 version. https://www.electionstudies.org
Ballew MT, Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Rosenthal SA, Kotcher JE, Marlon JR, Lyon E, Goldberg MH, Maibach EW (2019) Climate change in the American mind: data, tools, and trends. Environment: Sci Policy Sustain Dev 61(3):4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2019.1589300
Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Rev Gen Psychol 5(4):323–370
Beland D, Cox RH (2016) Ideas as coalition magnets: coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. J Eur Publ Policy 23:428–445
Bergquist P, Mildenberger M, Stokes LC (2020) Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environ Res Lett 15:054019
Bittle J (2022) The inflation reduction act promises thousands of new oil leases. Drillers might not want them. Grist. https://grist.org/energy/inflation-reduction-act-oil-gas-leases-federal-land/
Buchanan JM, Tullock G (1965) The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI
Canes-Wrone B, Brady DW, Cogan JF (2002) Out of step, out of office: electoral accountability and house members’ voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 96:127–140
Castle JJ, Stepp KK (2021) Partisanship, religion, and issue polarization in the United States: a reassessment. Polit Behav 43:1311–1335
Ciuk DJ, Yost BA (2016) The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Polit Commun 33:328–345
Converse PE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In: Apter DE (ed) Ideology and Discontent. The Free Press, New York, pp 206–261
Crew S et al (2020) Seven years of advanced energy action 2013–2019 state legislation in review. https://www.aeltracker.org/graphics/uploads/2013-2019StateAdvancedEnergyAction.pdf
Egan PJ, Mullin M (2017) Climate change: US public opinion. Annu Rev Polit Sci 20:209–227
English M, Kalla J (2021) Racial equality frames and public policy support: survey experimental evidence. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/tdkf3
Evans D (2004) Greasing the wheels: using pork barrel projects to build majority coalitions in congress. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617140
Fesenfeld LP (2022) The effects of policy design complexity on public support for climate policy. Behav Public Policy 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2022.3
Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ, Pope J (2011) Culture war?: the myth of a polarized America. Longman. https://books.google.com/books?id=s5YZQQAACAAJ
Gomila R (2021) Logistic or linear? Estimating causal effects of experimental treatments on binary outcomes using regression analysis. J Exp Psychol Gen 150:700–709
Hess D, Mai Q, Brown K (2016) Red states, green laws: Ideology and renewable energy legislation in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 11:19–28
Hetherington MJ (2009) Review article: putting polarization in perspective. Br J Polit Sci 39:413–448
Hsu A, Kelly ML (2019) How Georgia became a surprising bright spot in the U.S. solar industry. Houston Public Media. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/npr/2019/06/24/733795962/how-georgia-became-a-surprising-bright-spot-in-the-u-s-solar-industry/
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291
Kallbekken S (2023) Research on public support for climate policy instruments must broaden its scope. Nat Clim Change 13:206–208
Kaplan S, Grandoni D (2020) Stimulus deal includes raft of provisions to fight climate change. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/12/21/congress-climate-spending/
Kennedy B (2016) Public support for environmental regulations by state. Pew Res Cent. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/02/25/public-support-for-environmental-regulations-varies-by-state/
Kinder DR, Kalmoe NP (2017) Neither liberal nor conservative: ideological innocence in the American public. University of Chicago Press
Marshall R, Burgess MG (2022) Advancing bipartisan decarbonization policies: lessons from state-level successes and failures. Clim Change 171:17
Mason L (2015) “I Disrespectfully agree”: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. Am J Polit Sci 59:128–145
Mason L (2018) Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities. Public Opin Q 82:866–887
Miniard D, Kantenbacher J, Attari SZ (2020) Shared vision for a decarbonized future energy system in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117:7108–7114
Pew Research Center (2021) U.S. survey methodology. Pew Res Cent. https://www.pewresearch.org/our-methods/u-s-surveys/u-s-survey-methodology/
Schatschneider EE (1960) The semi-sovereign people: a realist’s view of democracy in america. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York
Slesinski D (2021) Why the United States needs a clean electricity standard. Cent Clim Energy Solut. https://www.c2es.org/2021/07/why-the-united-states-needs-a-clean-electricity-standard/
Stimson JA, Mackuen MB, Erikson RS (1995) Dynamic Representation. Am Polit Sci Rev 89:543–565
Sunrise Movement (2021) Our plan for the future: What is the Green New Deal? https://www.sunrisemovement.org/greennew-deal/?ms=WhatistheGreenNewDeal%3F
Van Boven L, Ehret PJ, Sherman DK (2018) Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspect Psychol Sci 13:492–507
West EA, Iyengar S (2022) Partisanship as a social identity: Implications for polarization. Polit Behav 44:807–838
Wicki M, Fesenfeld L, Bernauer T (2019) In search of politically feasible policy-packagesfor sustainable passenger transport: insights from choice experiments in China, Germany, and the USA. Environ Res Lett 14:084048
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC) and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (Mason 4C).(2022).Climate Change in the American Mind: National survey data on public opinion (2008–2022)[Data file and codebook].10.17605/OSF.IO/JW79P, 2022Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC), George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (Mason 4C) (2022) Climate Change in the American Mind: National survey data on public opinion (2008-2022) [Data file and codebook]. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JW79P
Acknowledgements
We thank members of the Burgess lab at the University of Colorado for comments on previous drafts. We thank members of the Environmental Politics Workshop at UCSB for comments on previous drafts. We acknowledge funding from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences’ Innovative Research Program.
Funding
We acknowledge funding from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences’ Innovative Research Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R. M., L.A-S., and M.G.B. designed the survey. R.M. and M.G.B. performed the survey. R.M., S.E.A., L.V.B., and M.G.B. designed the analysis. R.M. analyzed the data. R.M., S.E.A., L.V.B., L.A-S., and M.G.B. wrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
CU Boulder Institutional Review Board (IRB) deemed this study ‘exempt,’ from review. Reference number is 21–0309.
Consent to participate
The questionnaire and associated informed consent form are available in the supplementary information file.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Marshall, R., Anderson, S.E., Van Boven, L. et al. Neutral and negative effects of policy bundling on support for decarbonization. Climatic Change 177, 61 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03720-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03720-7