Does the United States have a “moral responsibility” to provide aid to poor countries, countries that have much lower carbon emissions than wealthier countries but face a much higher proportion of catastrophic climate events?
A study published Dec. 11 in the journal Climate Change explores U.S. public opinion on global climate policy, taking into account the U.S.’s historical role as one of the leading carbon emitters. The randomized controlled trial survey specifically explored Americans’ attitudes toward such moral responsibility.
The study was led by Evan Lieberman, MIT Professor of Contemporary African Politics and director of the MIT Center for International Studies, and Volha Czarnis, Ford Career Development Associate Professor of Politics, and co-authored by MIT political science doctoral student Jared Carrow and University of Pennsylvania postdoctoral researcher Erin Walke (Class of ’24). In this article, Lieberman describes the group’s research and insights and offers recommendations that could lead to more effective climate change advocacy.
Q: What were some key and surprising findings from your recent survey of Americans’ climate attitudes?
A: A big question at the COP29 climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, is who will pay for the trillions of dollars needed to help low-income countries adapt to climate change. In previous meetings, world leaders have come to agree that the wealthiest countries should foot the bill, but few commitments have been made. In countries like the United States, public opinion against such policies could weigh heavily on politicians’ minds, as their citizens are focused on their own national challenges.
Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister Gaston Browne is among many who see these transfers as a matter of moral responsibility, explaining that many wealthy countries “see climate finance as a random act of charity and don’t realise that they have a moral obligation to provide funds, particularly to past and even current large emitters”.
In our study, we decided to measure Americans’ attitudes toward climate-related foreign aid and to explicitly explore the impact of this particular moral responsibility narrative. We did this experimentally, so subjects were randomly assigned to receive different messages.
One message emphasized what we call a “climate justice” frame, arguing that Americans should contribute to helping poor countries because the United States plays a disproportionate role in emitting greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. This message positively influenced how much the public supported the use of foreign aid for climate change adaptation in poor countries. But when we looked at who was actually influenced by this message, we found that the effect was large and statistically significant only among Democrats, but not among Republicans.
We were surprised to see that the message of unity — “we’re in this together” — had no effect whatsoever on people’s attitudes, whether they were Democrats or Republicans.
Q: What recommendations do you have for addressing attitudes toward global climate policy in the United States?
A: First, our research certainly shows that, given the limited budgets and attention of media campaigns, a lighter focus on blame and criticism can be more effective than a broader message of shared responsibility.
But our research also highlights the importance of finding new ways to engage with Republicans on climate change and foreign aid. Republicans are much less supportive of climate change support, and even from that low base, messages that rally Democrats are receiving a much more mixed response among Republicans. Researchers and those working on the front lines of climate communication need to work harder to better understand Republican views. Younger Republicans, for example, may be more ambivalent about key climate policies.
Q: With the Trump administration in office, what specific obstacles and opportunities will you face in gaining the American public’s support for international climate change negotiations?
A: President Trump not only demonstrated his disdain for international efforts against climate change by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement during his first term, but has signaled his intention to further intensify such strategies in his second term. And what about the idea of helping the world’s poorest countries affected by climate change? It seems unlikely. With Republican public opinion so aligned with these views, it’s frankly hard to be optimistic.
Americans concerned about the effects of climate change may need to look to more governmental, non-governmental, corporate and global organizations to support climate justice efforts.
H: Is there anything else you’d like to share?
A: Those working in the climate change field may need to rethink how they speak and communicate about the challenges facing the world. At the moment, almost anything resembling “climate change” is likely to be rejected by Republican leaders and large segments of American society. Our approach of testing different types of messages is a relatively low-cost strategy to identify more promising strategies that target Americans and publics in other wealthy countries.
However, our study also shows, consistent with other studies, that partisanship (Republican vs. Democrat) is the strongest predictor of attitudes toward climate change support. While climate justice messages may shift people’s attitudes somewhat, the impact remains modest compared to the contribution of party affiliation itself. Just as Republican elites were persuaded to take the lead in the global fight against HIV and AIDS, similar challenges await support for climate action.
