I wanted to bring your attention to some recent articles that I hope are not limited access articles. In any case, they make two points:
1. The American public overwhelmingly supports a national clean energy standard, even when knowing it would cost them more money per year to do it.
2. Some people question the evidence for climate change and whether the potential risks as worth the necessary investment. For that group, convincing them that the efforts are beneficial for a “caring” society and technological progress may be the best approach to gaining their support.
A willingness to pay survey asking if people would support a national standard with the goal of 80% clean energy by 2035. And how much they would be willing to pay per year. But, there were three alternative definitions of clean energy. In one version of the survey, clean energy was defined only as renewables; in a second version it was defined as renewables and natural gas; and in the third version as renewables and nuclear.
To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.
Michael Hanemann (2012). Policy: Public support for clean energy Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1640