@joakimkulin.bsky.social
Associate professor at the Dept. of Sociology, Umeå University, Sweden | Political sociologist studying public opinion on climate change and climate policy. But also welfare state, immigration, political polarization, and rightwing populism.
In our new @environmentalpol.bsky.social study, me and Katya Rhodes measure 12 climate delay discourses (from Lamb et al. 2020) in U.S. public opinion, showing that some delay beliefs (e.g., whataboutism) strongly suppress support for government climate action. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
Interesting new study by @joakimkulin.bsky.social & Ekaterina Rhode "Beyond denial: climate delay discourses and public opinion on government climate action in the United States". Check it out.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10....
The "publish or perish" culture must perish. Scientists need time to think.
We just published our Slow Science Manifesto, where we argue that huge changes are needed in the way we fund, publish, and evaluate science.
Read more and sign here: www.slow-science.com
We’re happy to share new research co-authored by one of our colleagues: How do Europeans want to fight climate change?
Comparing and explaining public support for a wide variety of policies. By @mfair.bsky.social and @joakimkulin.bsky.social, and Ingemar Johansson 🔗 doi.org/10.1017/S014...
People with more trust are more accepting of costly policies, and it seems political trust makes people more confident that costs will be compensated by benefits. Because most people are distrusting, however, costly policies are unpopular--even policies experts recommend, like taxes.
(4/n)
In this new paper, we present one of the largest ever studies of public support for different climate policies--16 policies, 6000+ respondents in four countries (DE ES PL SE), and a survey experiment that makes a big contribution to our understanding of why people prefer the policies they do.
(1/n)
In a new @jpublicpolicy.bsky.social study, with @mfair.bsky.social and Johansson Sevä, we show that support for a wide range of climate policies varies considerably, and that people with low political trust are the most sensitive to policy costs, thus helping to explain opposition to carbon taxes.
#OpenAccess from @jpublicpolicy.bsky.social -
How do Europeans want to fight climate change? Comparing and explaining public support for a wide variety of policies - cup.org/3W89P1g
- @mfair.bsky.social, Ingemar Johansson Sevä & @joakimkulin.bsky.social
#FirstView
An interesting article by @mfair.bsky.social, Ingemar Johansson Sevä and @joakimkulin.bsky.social is now available on our FirstView page. It is entitled "How do Europeans want to fight climate change? Comparing and explaining public support for a wide variety of policies”.
Enjoy it here: t.ly/ZWy5u
Yeah, so this paper focused exclusively on whataboutism, but hopefully soon I will be able to provide an answer from a published study. :)
Glad you found it interesting!
Collapse of critical Atlantic current is no longer low likelihood, study finds
Climate whataboutism and rightwing populism: how emissions blame-shifting translates nationalist attitudes into climate policy opposition by Joakim Kulin
Pages: 979-999
doi.org/10.1080/0964...
You might find this @environmentalpol.bsky.social study interesting, focusing on public opinion on the linkage between climate whataboutism and nationalism. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
Happy to see this study published in @environmentalpol.bsky.social Vol 34, Issue 6. In it, I show how rightwing populists, especially those holding nationalist attitudes, consistently employ climate delay discourses (here whataboutism) to justify climate inaction. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
This resonates strongly…
(As it says “scientists”, economists are excluded 😉).
Nice hed, NYT. And this: "Even in the annals of Mr. Trump’s erratic presidency, the Anchorage meeting with Mr. Putin now stands out as a reversal of historic proportions." @peterbakernyt.bsky.social www.nytimes.com/2025/08/16/u...
It doesn't matter whether conservative ideals and policies are good or bad, popular or unpopular, if they are imposed on Americans unlawfully and arbitrarily. A free society is ruled by law.
Given Trump’s lawlessness, we no longer have a legitimate government.
trib.al/UdMH6uD
No, scientists (and research more broadly, incl. funding) focusing more on how bad it is getting (mainly physical sciences) rather than how we stop it (mainly social sciences).
We all know it will get (really) bad.
I guess I am not primarily thinking about ”social movements” (sorry for the particular wording) but rather scientists aiming to move reality. If that makes sense.
Former UK Prime Minister use his megaphone to promote climate delay through whataboutism (redirecting responsibility by blaming others for climate change). If you find this retorical strategy interesting, you might like this @environmentalpol.bsky.social study: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
BREAKING! Country that emits 1.4% of global GHG emissions would only contribute about 1.4% of global temperature stabilization efforts under Net Zero scenario! 🙄
Lomborg has made outstanding claims before, but this is one of (if not the) most rediculous one(s) so far. And this rhetorical strategy, blaming other nations to redirect responsibility (whataboutism), undermine climate action and is often driven by nationalism. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
”The latest deadline for countries to submit plans for slashing the greenhouse gas emissions fuelling climate change has passed. Only 15 countries met it – less than 8% of the 194 parties currently signed up…” theconversation.com/only-15-coun...
Haha ok.
Yes, I now agree that metric is inflated. However, I am not trying to make a purely scientific point but rather shift the perspective. Knowing some public opinion research on the topic, the target audience does not like/want carbon taxes (internalize the costs), and this needs to change.
I think we agree over the paper being somewhat misleading, at least as you say for laypeople. Some of that they were upfront with, both in the paper and news article. But phrasing these things in another way, like what I suggested, is possibly a way to get people thinking. Or not. Time will tell. :)
I agree on the vehicle externalities point, but disagree with the idea that unpaid externalities are not, in effect, subsidies. :)
