4.7 Article

Fossil fuel communities support climate policy coupled with just transition assistance

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113880

关键词

Climate change; Energy transition; Policy preferences; Compensation; Transition assistance; Fossil fuel communities; Coal; Oil and gas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the preferences of fossil fuel communities regarding the design of just transition assistance accompanying climate policy. It finds that while there is divergence in preferences for policies encouraging relocation, there is convergence behind support for policies that reduce costs to fossil fuel workers. The study also shows that providing information about coal's decline can shift preferences towards supporting the clean energy transition. Therefore, policy design and informational interventions can help create climate coalitions, even in areas most affected by the clean energy transition.
What are fossil fuel communities' preferences over the design of just transition assistance accompanying climate policy? This study conducted survey experiments at Appalachian county fairs to answer this question, overcoming barriers that have limited previous attempts to measure preferences in these crucial regions. Comparing the responses to a new national survey, there is a divergence in preferences for policies encouraging relocation, but there is convergence behind support for policies that reduce costs to fossil fuel workers. The study also finds that an intervention to provide information about coal's decline shifted preferences toward supporting the clean energy transition. Rather than public opinion being an immutable barrier to climate action, 66% of fossil fuel community residents would endorse climate policy if it were coupled with just transition assistance. Policy design and informational interventions could help to create climate coalitions, even in the places most affected by the clean energy transition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据