Daniel Lindvall

1. Despite the scientific consensus in climate research (Lynas, Houlton, and Perry 2021), segments of the European and Swedish population continue to express scepticism towards the scientific evide...

The failure of governments worldwide to meet the climate targets of the Paris Agreement has sparked a debate about different decision‐making practices. While some scholars advocate participatory practices, others argue for greater involvement of scientific experts. Less is known about public preferences for these decision‐making practices and their potential to generate policy legitimacy in the context of climate policymaking. Also, few studies have explored preferences across individuals with different political orientations, levels of trust, and attitudes to climate action. Drawing on a survey conducted in 2023 in Sweden, this study presents novel insights on public preferences for participatory democracy and technocracy with decision‐making authority within climate policymaking. The study finds that expert governance is not only the preferred model but also that it garners support across groups with diverse political views and among individuals unconcerned about climate change. The preferences may reflect growing frustration with insufficient climate action, but perhaps also the complexity and urgency of the issue. Under the assumptions about policy legitimacy presented in this study, expert governance appears to have greater potential than participatory democracy to foster consensus across political cleavages and to build acceptance among individuals who are typically skeptical of climate policies.

Democracies struggle to translate sustainability science, and public concern into sufficiently transformative actions. Ongoing polarization, politicization and disinformation extenuate this challenge. Some scholars suggest that deliberative democratic innovations can help to bridge science, public understanding and will formation, and policy implementation in the face of vested interests. In light of these challenges, we introduce deliberative mini-publics (DMPs), and why they are of interest to sustainability scientists. DMPs are distinguished from participatory methods more familiar to sustainability scientists by their random and stratified selection of ‘ordinary citizens’. An emphasis is also placed on facilitated deliberation, access to information and learning. Evidence shows that the particular conditions of DMPs can support more deliberative and informed reasoning and offer a considered public voice for decision-makers, fellow citizens and sustainability scientists. However, evidence of their wider effect on society and sustainability is mixed and warrants further examination. We draw on examples from emerging research and experience of DMPs to conceptualize three broad mechanisms for how they could potentially enhance the relationship between sustainability science, publics and politics. These differ based on whether they are primarily aiming to (1) inform policy-makers, (2) support public discourse, or (3) enhance transdisciplinary science. We also explore whether DMPs can challenge unsustainable systems and contribute to transformation through visioning, strategizing transitions, and scrutinizing the decisions of public agencies. We encourage experimentation and critical research on DMPs for sustainability transformations to test and better understand their potential.

This study aims to expand the understanding of public acceptance of carbon taxes by exploring the role of habits. Habits play a pivotal role in guiding our behaviors and reasoning and can even influence our self perception and identity but remain an underexplored variable in relation to public policy acceptance. We employed a large scale (N > 5200) national survey to measure public acceptance of higher carbon taxation in Sweden, also capturing car driving habits, car usage, and other relevant variables. The findings show that habit strength is negatively correlated with policy acceptance, regardless of self reported driving distance, while also appearing to moderate the relationship between policy acceptance and environmental concern and political leaning, variables previously shown to be of relevance. The study suggests that the influence of habits needs to be recognized to better understand the formation of climate policy acceptance, and exploring this perspective paves the way for future research.

Carbon taxes are considered to be an efficient method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; however, such taxes are generally unpopular, partly because they are seen as unfair. To explore if public acceptance of a stricter carbon tax in Sweden can be enhanced, this study investigates the effectiveness of three different policy designs, addressing collective and personal distributional consequences and promoting procedural aspects (democratic influence). A large-scale (n = 5200) survey is applied, combining a traditional multi-category answer format with a binary choice format. The results show that support for higher carbon taxation can be enhanced if tax revenues are redistributed to affected groups. Policies with collective justice framings can change the attitudes of individuals who express antagonistic attitudes to increased carbon taxation and influence groups comparably more affected by carbon taxes, such as rural residents, low-income groups, and people who are driving long distances. Policy designs addressing collective distributional consequences are, however, less effective on individuals expressing right-leaning ideological views and low environmental concern. Policies addressing personal distributional outcomes, or perceptions of procedural injustice, had no significant effect on policy acceptance.