Assessing the public willingness to contribute income to mitigate the effects of climate change: A comparison of Adelaide and Lisbon

Abstract

While the scientific rationale for climate change mitigation has never been stronger, the Australian public is still hesitant about personally contributing to its costs. This public reticence is often explained as resulting from cost–benefit calculations and a human propensity to prioritize present over future goods. In this article we argue that these assumptions have limited bearing on people’s willingness to contribute. Our research supports this by demonstrating that the people of Lisbon, Portugal, are more willing to contribute than those of Adelaide, despite Portugal’s poorer economic conditions. Furthermore, willingness to contribute in both Lisbon and Adelaide does not diminish when the effects of climate change are deemed to be further away. Drawing on these results, we seek to begin the discussion of how social and cultural factors shape public attitudes towards climate change, and thus further build upon the research looking sociologically at people’s willingness to act.

Is There a Link between Welfare Regime and Attitudes toward Climate Policy Instruments?

“…Evidence also indicates that environmental consciousness is not just a luxury for the wealthy but a prerequisite for the poor (Martínez-Alier 2003). People living in poorer or environmentally threatened conditions are often more concerned about the environment and more willing to contribute to its protection compared with people in wealthier conditions (Everuss et al 2017;Fairbrother 2013). Overall, the relationship between economic conditions and environmental attitudes appears to be mixed (Bakaki and Bernauer 2018;Lo 2016;Mayer and Smith 2017).…”

Climate Donations Inspired by Evidence-Based Fundraising

“…This has been studied in both charitable donations and concern for climate change. However, results are often complex and context-specific ( Spence et al, 2012 ; Evans et al, 2014 ; Milfont et al, 2014 ; Stoknes, 2014 ; Brügger et al, 2015a , b ; McDonald et al, 2015 ; van der Linden et al, 2015 ; Wiest et al, 2015 ; Rickard et al, 2016 ; Weber, 2016 ; Everuss et al, 2017 ; Jones et al, 2017 ; Singh et al, 2017 ; Brugger and Pidgeon, 2018 ; Johannsen et al, 2018 ; Lee et al, 2018 ; Roser-Renouf and Maibach, 2018 ; Schuldt et al, 2018 ; Chen, 2019 ; Chu and Yang, 2019 ; Kim and Ahn, 2019 ; Mildenberger et al, 2019 ; Romero-Canyas et al, 2019 ; Wang et al, 2019 ).…”