In efforts to tackle climate change, nations that are signatories to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change must periodically present voluntary commitments detailing the percentage by which they aim to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. These commitments are known as Percentage Reduction Pledges (PRPs). Professor Dr Heinz Welsch, an environmental economist from the University of Oldenburg in Germany, has conducted an empirical analysis to examine how these national climate commitments align with the willingness of citizens in various countries to contribute to climate change mitigation, a concept he terms Willingness to Contribute (WTC). His findings were published in the respected journal Ecological Economics.
Professor Welsch’s research highlights that significant country-specific factors influence both the PRPs and the WTC. These factors include per-capita income, levels of emissions, and average temperatures, all of which he found to correlate positively with the national climate pledges. Interestingly, these same factors correlate negatively with the citizens’ willingness to contribute, suggesting a complex relationship between national goals and individual readiness to act. Moreover, his study identified a relationship between these factors and levels of satisfaction with democracy, indicating a broader socio-political context influencing climate action.
The scope of Welsch’s study is extensive. It compares the climate targets of 123 nations, updated last in 2021, against data from the Global Climate Change Survey, which polled nearly 130,000 people across 125 countries in 2021 and 2022. A significant revelation from this survey was the strong support for climate action, with 89% of participants desiring more political intervention from their governments against climate change and 69% expressing readiness to allocate 1% of their income towards climate mitigation measures.
Welsch’s analytical model explores the interplay between cost-benefit calculations, ethical considerations, and personal preferences in shaping national climate policies and individual contributions to climate mitigation. His findings underscore higher per-capita income and emissions correlate with more ambitious governmental climate targets. However, they also reduce citizens’ willingness to contribute to climate action. The influence of average temperatures further complicates this inverse relationship—warmer countries show greater willingness among citizens to support climate action than their colder counterparts, who nonetheless set more ambitious climate targets.
Looking at Germany specifically, the data aligns with Welsch’s broader findings. Despite being one of the leaders in climate ambition, with a pledge to cut emissions by 39.7% from 2019 to 2030, German citizens show a comparatively lower willingness to contribute financially to climate action. This indicates a potential dissonance between governmental climate objectives and public readiness to support these through personal financial sacrifices.
Welsch’s study points to a critical tension inherent in the United Nations’ climate ethics, which advocate for “common but differentiated responsibilities” across nations. This principle emphasises fairness and equity but appears to clash with the realpolitik of cost-benefit analyses prevalent among the public. In colder, wealthier, and more emission-intensive countries, there tends to be a lower public willingness to engage in costly climate measures. This is partly because people in these countries may perceive that the direct impacts of climate change will be less severe, or they fear negative economic repercussions from stringent climate policies.
Furthermore, the study suggests that a discrepancy between ambitious climate targets and public willingness to support these measures correlates with lower satisfaction levels regarding democracy. This indicates a broader political challenge: advancing climate policies that require public sacrifices without fostering disenchantment or resistance that radical political forces could exploit.
Professor Welsch proposes a potential solution to this dilemma—a climate fund. This would involve using revenues from emission taxes to support economically vulnerable groups, thus mitigating the economic and social impacts of climate protection measures. Such a strategy could bridge the gap between national climate ambitions and public willingness, fostering a more harmonious approach to combating climate change while supporting democratic stability. This suggestion offers a pragmatic approach to resolving the tensions between national policies and individual actions in the face of global climate challenges.
More information: Heinz Welsch, Are national climate change mitigation pledges shaped by citizens’ mitigation preferences? Evidence from globally representative data, Ecological Economics. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108520
Journal information: Ecological Economics Provided by University of Oldenburg