Data from two MTurk studies with U.S. respondents (total N =1,153) revealed an ideological divide in adherence to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, political conservatism inversely predicted compliance with behaviors aimed at preventing the spread of the COVID-19. Differences in reported social distancing were mediated by divergent perceptions of the health risk posed by COVID-19 (Studies 1 and 2), which were explained by differences in self-reported knowledge of COVID-19 (Study 1) and perceived media accuracy in covering the pandemic (Studies 1 and 2). The politicization of COVID-19 may have prompted conservatives to discount mainstream media reports of the severity of the virus, leading them to downplay its health risks and consequently adherence less to social distancing protocols. These effects hold when controlling for key demographic characteristics as well as psychological variables, including belief in science and COVID-19-related anxiety. Thus, political ideology may uniquely explain COVID-19 behavior.

Our work examines the relationship between knowledge/familiarity with shale gas development in a comparative context. The Uni ted States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) represent very different cases of shale gas development, with development relatively mature in the US whilst, no extraction of shale gas has yet commenced in the UK. Comparing results from two national level survey efforts in 2014, we find higher levels of knowledge abou t the shale gas industry in the UK than in the US, as well as higher levels of support in the US (opposition levels were similar, but US respondents were much less likely than UK respondents to say that they did not know whether they supported or opposed development). With respect to the relationship between knowledge and support, increased knowledge in the UK is associated with increased support, while knowledge was unrelated to support in the US. We anchor these results within the inf ormation deficit model of science, suggesting that concentrated media and governance in the UK have played an important role in producing the demonstrated effects.

The development of shale gas in the United Kingdom (UK) using hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as 'fracking', remains in its infancy. Yet understanding public attitudes for this fledgling industry is important for future policy considerations, decision-making and for industry stakeholders. This study uses data collected from the University of Nottingham UK nationwide online survey (n=3,823) conducted in September 2014, to consider ten hypothesises about the UK public's attitudes towards shale gas. From the survey data we can see that 43.11% of respondents support shale gas extraction in the UK. Furthermore, our results show that women, class DE respondents, non-Conservative party supporters, and respondents who positively associate shale gas with water contamination or earthquakes are less likely to support the extraction of shale gas in the UK. We also discuss potential policy implications for the UK government arising from these findings.

This article addresses the question of whether environmental direct action against policies or institutions that are recognised as democratically legitimate can be justified. Arguments that seek to tie environmental outcomes to stipulated requirements of either the democratic process or distributive theories of justice are found wanting in this regard. However, one of the central justifications for the losers in a democratic settlement accepting defeat is policy reversibility. The non‐reversible element in significant areas of environmental change entails that environmentalists are forced to play a ‘one‐shot’ political strategy. This fact lends support to the justification of environmental direct action in such cases, although it may also apply beyond the sphere of environmental politics.

No abstract