J. Environ. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101342 (2019).

The public is often in favour of policies to limit carbon emissions, but less willing to support carbon taxation. Although different policy options may have similar final costs, the way a policy is framed can have implications for public acceptance.

David Hardisty and colleagues, at the University of British Columbia, Canada, and the Environmental Defense Fund, USA, examine consumer perceptions of ‘upstream’ carbon regulations (at the point of extraction) versus ‘downstream’ (on the usage of goods) in the international aviation sector. In three studies, they find that consumers had a preference for carbon regulation when it was framed as an upstream offset in which aviation fuel producers and importers purchased offsets to reduce emissions, rather than a downstream offset paid by airlines and their customers. Offset schemes were preferred over policies described as taxes, and downstream taxes were particularly disliked, even when the total cost to the consumer was the same. This preference is attributed to participants’ perception of the upstream offset as having a greater impact on climate change and its effectiveness at holding carbon polluters directly accountable.