In:
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, Oekom Publishers GmbH, Vol. 27, No. 4 ( 2018-01-01), p. 363-372
Abstract:
Staatliche Eingriffe in den Lebensmittelkonsum der Deutschen sind im europäischen Vergleich eher selten. Politiker(innen) empfinden wohl Lenkungssteuern- oder Werbeverbote als unpopulär. Konkrete Maßnahmen zum Klimaschutz, etwa eine Klimasteuer auf importierte Flugwaren,
stoßen jedoch auf breite Zustimmung und könnten durchaus zu Klimazielen beitragen.In view of climate change, policy approaches addressing the consumption side of nutrition are becoming increasingly relevant to lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet, adequate policy instruments can be risky. They interfere with individual freedom of choice and can thus be unpopular. This study investigates the social acceptance of governmental interventions. The study explores four types of climate policy instruments of increasing depth of intervention: 1. information and education,
2. nudging, 3. taxation, 4. bans. Information and nudging are met with the la rgest degree of approval. Assuming that acceptance will decrease with the depth of intervention, the equally critical perception of taxation and bans is an exception. Apart from the depth of intervention, social acceptance
also depends on the field of action. For instance, taxation of airfreight products would be widely accepted. The conclusion explores nutrition policy options motivated by climate policy considerations.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0940-5550
DOI:
10.14512/gaia.27.4.8
Language:
English
Publisher:
Oekom Publishers GmbH
Publication Date:
2018
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2901363-X
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2111556-4
detail.hit.zdb_id:
1114994-2
SSG:
14
SSG:
5,21
