This article was produced and financed by The Research Council of Norway
Making climate taxes more acceptable
A majority of Norwegians would accept increased climate taxes – if the taxes are understood as targeting specific environmental purposes. Earmarking of the revenues could help to gain public acceptance for such taxes.
The Research Council of Norway
It is difficult to find climate policy instruments that are both effective and have the backing of the general public.
Economists and politicians prefer to avoid earmarking of tax revenues because it limits their ability to prioritise discretionary spending in the longer term.
“But the politicians should nonetheless consider earmarking revenues, for instance to make it easier to implement new climate measures,” says Steffen Kallbekken, who is Research Director at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO).
He headed the project Designing feasible and efficient climate policies.
Accepting higher fuel tax
In a nationwide survey a majority of Norwegians initially responded that fuel taxes should be cut by NOK 1 per litre, which is equivalent to 0.13 Euros.
"But when we told survey respondents that the fuel tax would be targeted towards a specific environmental objective, the majority stated they would support raising Norwegian fuel taxes by NOK 1. Politicians would do well to take note of this finding," says Kallbekken.
Furthermore, a focus group study carried out under the project showed that, compared to people in other countries, Norwegians in general are less sceptical of environmental taxes and have more confidence in the authorities in this sphere.
Experience leads to positive attitudes
Kallbekken also conducted laboratory experiments that showed that personal experience makes people more positive towards measures.
The project Designing feasible and efficient climate policies received funding from the Research Council of Norway’s Large-scale Programme on Climate Change and its Impacts in Norway (NORKLIMA).
This was also the case with the introduction of Stockholm’s extra toll on rush-hour traffic. Most people were hesitant regarding a toll of this type on roads into the downtown area. But within a few months of the toll’s introduction on a trial basis, people experienced its benefits: less noise and pollution, and fewer accidents. In the follow-up referendum, a majority voted to make the toll permanent.
Kallbekken believes politicians should be aware of the following points when devising climate policy:
- Earmarking of funds for specific purposes has a major impact on acceptance.
- People often develop more positive attitudes after direct experience.
- Better information to the public about what the monies will be used for can be an effective way to gain acceptance for higher environmental taxes – particularly if earmarked for specific environmental measures.
People want a choice
“In the project we confirmed that people resent it when the authorities don’t give them a choice in matters,” continues Kallbekken.
“We see a strong correlation between a measure’s lack of popularity and the degree to which it limits people’s choice.”
He says that if people are given greater choice, it can lead to more support. One example that he mentions is further investment in public transport, because this can offer greater choice in mode of transport. The result can be more public backing for investing in public transport.
“The key to gaining public acceptance is ensuring that people feel they’ll get something in return. So if politicians want to muster support for climate and environmental measures, they need to use a balanced combination of carrot and stick. If people feel they are being railroaded into something, they will react negatively.”
Translated by: Darren McKellep/Carol B. Eckmann