A recent study by Uppsala University’s Climate Change Leadership Group suggests that rationing goods like meat and fuel could reduce consumption and mitigate climate change.
Nearly 40% of people surveyed indicated they could accept such measures, especially if applied fairly, regardless of income.
“Rationing may seem extreme, but so is climate change. One advantage of rationing is its perceived fairness, which often leads to higher public acceptance,” said Oskar Lindgren, a researcher at Uppsala University who led the study, published in Humanities & Social Sciences Communications.
The research examined 9,000 individuals across Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa, and the U.S., comparing the acceptability of rationing to carbon taxes on high-emission products like meat and fuel.
The public views rationing as equally acceptable to taxes for reducing emissions-intensive consumption.Surprisingly, the results showed that public acceptance of rationing was on par with taxes. For example, 38% of respondents supported fuel rationing, while 39% favored fuel taxes.
“There was little difference in opposition to rationing versus taxation, particularly in Germany, where more people opposed fuel taxes than rationing,” noted Mikael Karlsson, Senior Lecturer in Climate Leadership at Uppsala University.
The study found significant differences in acceptability across countries, with India and South Africa more supportive of rationing compared to the U.S. and Germany.
Younger and more educated individuals, as well as those concerned about climate change, were more likely to support rationing.
Lindgren highlighted the need for further research into policy design, noting that water rationing is already occurring globally, and many people seem willing to adopt similar measures for climate action.