Legislators often bundle policies together in order to accomplish more with less hassle and attempt to make legislation more appealing to a broader group. However, a new study in the journal Climatic Change suggests that this strategy can sometimes backfire. The authors found that pairing climate policies with other policies does not necessarily increase their popular appeal and can actually reduce public support. Progressive policymakers sometimes combine climate change and social justice policies that address related priorities like racial inequality. Bipartisan groups will also combine climate change with conservative-friendly policies, like reducing regulations, to increase their appeal across the political spectrum. However, both of these strategies could reduce public support for climate change measures.
The study, conducted by researchers from UC Santa Barbara, the University of Colorado Boulder, and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, asked 2,521 American adults about their opinions on four different climate change policies. Some participants were asked about the climate policies on their own, while others saw the climate policies paired with another measure. The second policy was selected from four options: pausing new EPA regulations; infrastructure spending; economic redistribution; or a social justice policy. Climate policies paired with pausing EPA regulations or social justice were less popular than when presented alone. Pairing them with infrastructure spending or economic redistribution did not affect their popularity among participants.
“People oppose policies they don’t like more strongly than they support policies they do like,” explained co-author Leaf Van Boven, chair of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder. The study found that liberals are more put off by pausing EPA regulations, while conservatives are more put off by social justice measures. Despite these findings, a previous study from UC Santa Barbara found that pairing climate change policies with certain economic redistribution measures could actually increase their appeal among Democrats. The current study found a similar pattern, but the differences were too small to be statistically significant, suggesting that certain pairings might increase support for climate policies.
“One pattern that may be relevant here is that the average American is economically liberal and socially conservative,” said co-author Matt Burgess, director of the Center for Social and Environmental Futures at the University of Colorado Boulder. “In this light, it makes sense that economic redistribution has a larger constituency than social justice or pausing regulation.” Regardless of these findings, the authors noted that there could still be valid reasons for bundling policies together. Marshall pointed out that there are profound racial inequalities that climate change exacerbates, and experts believe that streamlining permitting and cutting red tape can speed up the energy transition. Policymakers may still want to address social justice or reduce regulations in their climate-related policies, even if it comes at a cost to popularity from some segments of the electorate.
In conclusion, while bundling policies together can be a convenient and efficient way for legislators to address multiple issues, it is important to be mindful of the potential costs that this strategy can have. Pairing climate policies with certain measures may increase their appeal among certain groups, but can also decrease support among others. Understanding how different pairings affect public opinion can help policymakers make informed decisions when crafting legislation. Overall, it is essential for legislators to balance the benefits and drawbacks of bundling policies together in order to effectively address complex issues like climate change.
