Climate policies that raise fuel prices risk sparking uncontrollable public backlash
A new study reveals that governments attempting to cut fossil fuel use through price increases face a critical political risk: citizens often blame policymakers directly, triggering protests that can force policy reversals. For businesses and policymakers, the finding suggests that climate mitigation strategies must account for public backlash—or risk undermining emissions reductions before they take effect.
Originaltitel: Fueling protest?: Climate change mitigation, fuel prices and protest onset
<p>Mitigating global warming requires a rapid reduction in the use of fossil fuels which form the foundation of modern economies. Fossil fuel reduction is crucial for minimizing future loss and damage associated with a changing climate, but a challenging task. In diverse contexts, climate-friendly policies that increased fuel prices have sparked massive, at times violent, protests, ultimately leading to a reversal of those policies. However, to what extent and under what conditions fuel prices and policies affect protest more generally is poorly understood. Addressing this gap, we study how fuel prices affect the likelihood of protest onset. We theorize that increases in fuel prices may create economic grievances through their impacts on the cost of living and income. We also suggest that the likelihood of protest following such price increases would be particularly high where attribution of blame to government policies is feasible, such as in fuel subsidizing states, as well as when governments are seen as being able to provide a remedy such as in petroleum producing states. We evaluate our theoretical framework using global country-level monthly statistics 2003–2015, combining protest data with data on the price of gasoline, fuel policies, and country characteristics, and subject our results to placebo and sensitivity tests. Our study finds that gasoline price hikes increase the likelihood of protest onset across the global sample. In line with our theoretical framework, we also find evidence for a clustering of such relationships in the presence of subsidies and oil production, where the attribution of fuel prices to government (in)action tends to be higher. These results highlight the need for policymakers to anticipate public responses to price increases. This study lays the groundwork for more detailed investigations into climate-friendly subsidy and tax reforms.</p>