Nobody questions that the climate crisis is a pressing problem. The polls leave no room for doubt. Concern is very high in the richest countries, but also notable in the poorest.
The remedies that are on the table also receive wide support. Large majorities in developed countries support the transition to renewable energy, while the poor also see it as a solution to grow without depending so much on oil that they do not have.
Another thing is who pays the cost of saving the planet. The poor demand that the rich pay what they have promised, but the rich are reluctant to allocate financial resources to a problem with little electoral return.
Public opinion in the major industrial powers, for example, resists paying more taxes on carbon, the cheapest and most direct way to reverse the climate crisis.
90% of Americans, according to a Gallup study, agree that the planet is warming. In Portugal it is more than 95%, according to a study by Yale University.
However, both Americans and Europeans are reluctant to pay more green taxes.
Only 44% of Americans favor a carbon tax, according to a University of Chicago poll, while 29% oppose it.
Without the support of public opinion, no government dares to raise taxes. It is paradoxical and very illustrative, therefore, that, despite high collective awareness, environmental taxes in the EU only represent 5.9% of the total. Moreover, 20 years ago they represented 6.6%.
Brussels warns that tax revenues from this type of tax guarantee that in 2030 greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 55%, as established by the commitment to Green Europe.
However, when an attempt has been made to introduce a new green tax, as in France four years ago, the social protest was strongly opposed. The movement of the yellow vests turned the country upside down and posed the greatest challenge to the Macron government, which had to cancel the proposal.
Very often, governments have failed to convince citizens of the need for these fiscal measures, even if they compensate them with a reduction in taxes on work income.
It is true that trust between the administration and those administered is at rock bottom, but when the fate of the new green taxes is well explained, when public opinion understands that they are fair and effective, the attitude changes.
The University of Chicago study is very clear. When the interviewee knows the destination of his money, that 44% of support for green taxes increases. 66%, for example, would agree to pay them if it served to recover natural spaces.
However, if the interviewees are told that the money will serve to lower the energy bill in their homes, the support barely increases five tenths, up to 49%.
It is not so much not wanting to pay, but not believing that the administration will use the proceeds to combat the climate crisis.
Reaching this level of trust between the administration and taxpayers is, however, very difficult. Political debate divides society. Ideology and emotion prevail over common sense.
In the United States, a survey by the Pew research center reveals that many more Democrats than Republicans attribute the climate crisis to the action of man.
Progressives, in the US and also in Europe, are therefore more willing to limit emissions than conservatives. They are also willing to accelerate the transition to renewable energy, while Republicans are more in favor of expanding the use of fossil fuels.
When instead of talking about taxes, public opinion is presented with other solutions to reverse warming, the support is much greater.
A worldwide survey conducted by the United Nations, for example, ensures that actions to conserve forests and land have 54% support. It is the most popular measure. Greater use of renewable energy is supported by 53% of global public opinion.
The strategy of rewarding companies, homes and vehicles that pollute less also receives a very good grade (50%). The Pew study agrees that two out of three Americans agree with policies that help plant more trees or lower the tax burden on companies that capture CO2 emissions. Most Republicans and Democrats agree that the administration should do more to follow this line.
Taxation, in any case, is a very controversial and delicate issue now that inflation has skyrocketed the cost of living. The governments that in 2016 promised to contribute 1000,000 million annually to poor countries to help them in the energy transition have never complied. Now, at the COP27 summit held in Egypt, this issue will be on the table again and will not be resolved.
The rich countries are the ones that have polluted the most and continue to pollute, but they are also the ones that feel the least the effects of climate change because they occupy more northern latitudes and are better prepared to face climatic disasters.
A study by Yale University indicates, in this sense, that only 5% of Norwegians consider that climate change affects them personally, a strong contrast with 62% of the inhabitants of Malawi, who think otherwise.
Consequently, the political cost for the governments of the rich countries of raising taxes - as Macron was able to verify - is much greater than the environmental benefit.
Low-income countries are the most exposed to the droughts and floods that come with the climate crisis, but they are also the least aware of this danger.
The UN survey very clearly identifies an educational gap in knowledge and awareness of the problem. The most educated people, whether in rich or poor countries, are the most willing to change their lifestyles to make them more sustainable. The problem for the planet is that in poor countries only a very small percentage of the population has access to higher education.
The Earth, according to the broad consensus of the scientific community, has been warming for 400 years and the cause is anthropocentric. A vast majority of humanity agrees that it is a serious threat to future generations and that governments must do more.
This same silent majority is willing to make sacrifices, but not at any price. It does not support more taxes, but it does support the administration investing more in renewables and forcing, for example, cars to spend and pollute less.
As always, it is better that others pay.
