Joakim Kulin

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.

Logo of the Journal of Public Policy with the text "#OpenAccess" below in white on a black background.

#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 Scientists say ‘shocking’ discovery shows rapid cuts in carbon emissions are needed to avoid catastrophic fallout The collapse of a critical Atlantic current can no longer be considered a low-likelihood event, a study has concluded, making deep cuts to fossil fuel emissions even more urgent to avoid the catastrophic impact. The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) is a major part of the global climate system. It brings sun-warmed tropical water to Europe and the Arctic, where it cools and sinks to form a deep return current. The Amoc was already known to be at its weakest in 1,600 years as a result of the climate crisis. Continue reading...

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 In the evolving discourse on climate change, the phenomenon of ‘whataboutism’ has emerged as a pervasive rhetorical strategy to deflect responsibility for the emissions of one’s own country by shif...

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...

Climate whataboutism and rightwing populism: how emissions blame-shifting translates nationalist attitudes into climate policy opposition In the evolving discourse on climate change, the phenomenon of ‘whataboutism’ has emerged as a pervasive rhetorical strategy to deflect responsibility for the emissions of one’s own country by shif...

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....

Bluesky now platform of choice for science community It’s not just you. Survey says: “Twitter sucks now and all the cool kids are moving to Bluesky”…

FUCK YEAH SCIENCE

arstechnica.com/science/2025...

Climate whataboutism and rightwing populism: how emissions blame-shifting translates nationalist attitudes into climate policy opposition In the evolving discourse on climate change, the phenomenon of ‘whataboutism’ has emerged as a pervasive rhetorical strategy to deflect responsibility for the emissions of one’s own country by shif...

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....

Scientists no Longer Find Twitter Professionally Useful, and have Switched to Bluesky Synopsis. Social media has become widely used by the scientific community for a variety of professional uses, including networking and public outreach. For

This resonates strongly…

(As it says “scientists”, economists are excluded 😉).

Trump Bows to Putin’s Approach on Ukraine: No Cease-Fire, Deadlines or Sanctions

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....

Only 15 countries have met the latest Paris agreement deadline. Is any nation serious about tackling climate change? The low submission rate undermines the global commitment to climate action.

”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. :)

This needs to be said: Unpaid externalities (e.g., no or low carbon taxes) are gifts from the public/governments to the fossil fuel industry. You may call them subsidies — without which the industry would not survive. In other words, we subsidise them, and the price is the public good. The end.

World oil and gas subsidies worth $7trillion - Energy Live News Economic study says cutting fossil fuel 'hidden' subsidies would mean hitting climate goals now

Global CO₂ emissions would fall by 32%, with 40% of countries—including India, China and Russia—meeting their Paris Agreement targets simply by cutting fossil fuel subsidies, which in 2022 amounted to $7 trillion (7.1% of global GDP!). www.energylivenews.com/2025/03/18/w...

Amazon rainforest cut down to build highway for COP climate summit The infrastructure required to host COP30 in Belém is undermining the cause, campaigners say.

There is irony, and then there is this: ”A new four-lane highway cutting through tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest is being built for the COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian city of Belém.” www.bbc.com/news/article...