What do you believe is the single most important factor driving up the cost of living in Nigeria?

Rationing of goods such as meat and fuel can both effectively and fairly reduce consumption with high climate impact. Almost 40% of the public say they could accept such measures. These are the findings of new research from the Climate Change Leadership Group at Uppsala University.

"Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change. This may explain why support is rather high. One advantage of rationing is that it can be perceived as fair, if made independent of income.

"Policies perceived as fair often enjoy higher levels of acceptance," explains Oskar Lindgren, doctoral student in natural resources and sustainable development at the Department of Earth Sciences at Uppsala University, who led the study, now published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.

To achieve climate targets, policies that effectively reduce consumption with a high climate impact, such as meat and fuel, are needed. At the same time, public acceptance of a particular policy instrument strongly depends on whether it is perceived as fair or not.

So far, research in this area has mainly examined economic instruments, such as carbon taxes, while giving little attention to other instruments that could be effective, like rationing.

• Read More