Greener Futures in Tense Times: Navigating Environmental Policy, Political Ideology, and Economic Well-Being

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Abstract

Political ideology and perceptions of human well-being intersect at multiple junctions in debates on environmental and energy policies among the public and elected officials. The interactions present numerous political challenges. Political science, with its expertise in measuring and understanding both ideological beliefs and economic perceptions of well-being, bears the responsibility for disentangling how these factors influence policy communications and, hence, policy outputs in today’s highly politicized setting. The papers in this panel address the challenges in environmental and energy politics caused by these mixed signals from political actors on their ideological and economic positions.

The first paper by Constantino (Northeastern & Princeton), Caggiano (UBC), Greig (Princeton), and Weber (Princeton) explores the factors that influence public and political support for large-scale renewable energy projects in Appalachia, Pennsylvania, by examining preferences related to project attributes (e.g., employment opportunities, distance from residential areas, and ownership). Using conjoint experiments on two groups (local residents and policymakers), the paper reveals the drivers of support for renewable energy projects. It also highlights the extent to which elected officials misjudge public backing for renewable sources and the significance of employment-related impacts.

The second paper by Brückmann (U. Bern & LSE) analyzes the factors influencing the survival or closure of low-traffic neighborhoods (LTNs) in London, UK, introduced to promote environmental and public health. Analyzing various secondary data sources it helps to understand the challenges faced by environmental regulations and inform future policy decisions for sustainable city planning.

The third paper by Kachi (U.Basel), Ebner (U.Basel), and Montfort (U.Bern) examines the reasons behind resistance to climate mitigation policies, particularly the perceived job-loss risks and underlying ideological beliefs. Using a survey experiment (UK) with a belief update task, they investigate how and why individuals might (not) adapt their policy stance when presented with objective assessments of their job risks related to these policies.

The insights from the panel will assist researchers and policymakers in critically rethinking today’s policy communication. The link between ideological beliefs and financial worries fuels tension in debates on issues beyond the environment, such as migration and public health. Thus, the impact of this research is far-reaching.

Sub Unit

• General Paper and Panel Submissions

Individual Presentations

• Public and Elected Official Preferences for Low-Carbon and Renewable Energy Infrastructure Projects: Evidence from Appalachia - Sara Constantino, Northeastern University; Holly Caggiano, Princeton University

• Provision of and Defiance of Local Environmental Regulation: The Case of London’s Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods - Gracia Brückmann, University of Bern

• Climate Policy Kills Jobs, They Say: Unveiling Economic Fears and Ideological Motives behind Policy Resistance - Aya Kachi, University of Basel / KAPSARC School of Public Policy; Manuel Ebner, University of Basel; Simon Andres Montfort, University of Bern

Chair

• David Darmofal University of South Carolina

Discussants

• Aya Kachi University of Basel / KAPSARC School of Public Policy

• Gracia Brückmann University of Bern