IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v149y2021ics0301421520308090.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

U.S. public support for biofuels tax credits: Cost frames, local fuel prices, and the moderating influence of partisanship

Author

Listed:
  • Goldfarb, Jillian L.
  • Kriner, Douglas L.

Abstract

Researchers debate the viability of biofuels to address growing global energy demands and climate change. Understanding factors that maintain and build public support for government policies bolstering biofuels is critical. Using a nationally representative survey experiment, we examine the influence of competing cost arguments and spatial variation in ZIP-code level gasoline prices on Americans' support for federal tax credits to promote biofuels. We examine the influence of competing arguments about the cost implications of biofuels for consumers on support for federal tax credits, and whether such treatment effects are moderated by respondents’ political partisanship and by variation in local fuel prices. Consistent with research on loss aversion, arguments that biofuels could increase costs for consumers were more influential than arguments touting economic benefits. However, arguments that biofuels could eventually decrease fuel costs for consumers were more influential among subjects who experienced high local gasoline prices. Finally, we found evidence of a significant partisan divide in policy preferences, and evidence that partisanship moderates the influence both of competing cost frames and of local fuel prices on support for federal biofuels tax credits. Our results add important nuance to understanding of how economic calculations affect public support for policies to support biofuels.

Suggested Citation

  • Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2021. "U.S. public support for biofuels tax credits: Cost frames, local fuel prices, and the moderating influence of partisanship," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:149:y:2021:i:c:s0301421520308090
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520308090
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112098?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fiorese, Giulia & Catenacci, Michela & Verdolini, Elena & Bosetti, Valentina, 2013. "Advanced biofuels: Future perspectives from an expert elicitation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 293-311.
    2. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    3. Gallagher, Brian J., 2011. "The economics of producing biodiesel from algae," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 158-162.
    4. Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri & Chen, Xiaoguang, 2013. "Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: Economic and greenhouse gas implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 5-15.
    5. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    6. Baral, Nabin, 2018. "What socio-demographic characteristics predict knowledge of biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 369-376.
    7. Farrow, Katherine & Grolleau, Gilles & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2018. "Less is more in energy conservation and efficiency messaging," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-6.
    8. Demet Yilmazkuday & Hakan Yilmazkuday, 2019. "Redistributive Effects of Gasoline Prices," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 109-124, March.
    9. Cacciatore, Michael A. & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2012. "Labeling renewable energies: How the language surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 673-682.
    10. Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Buessing, Marric & Kriner, Douglas L., 2016. "Geographic proximity to coal plants and U.S. public support for extending the Production Tax Credit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 299-307.
    11. Kinder, Donald R. & Kiewiet, D. Roderick, 1981. "Sociotropic Politics: The American Case," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 129-161, April.
    12. Ashlie Delshad & Leigh Raymond, 2013. "Media Framing and Public Attitudes Toward Biofuels," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(2), pages 190-210, March.
    13. Lapan, Harvey & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2012. "Second-best biofuel policies and the welfare effects of quantity mandates and subsidies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 224-241.
    14. Savvanidou, Electra & Zervas, Efthimios & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2010. "Public acceptance of biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3482-3488, July.
    15. Oliveira, Gustavo de L.T. & McKay, Ben & Plank, Christina, 2017. "How biofuel policies backfire: Misguided goals, inefficient mechanisms, and political-ecological blind spots," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 765-775.
    16. Marciano, James A. & Lilieholm, Robert J. & Teisl, Mario F. & Leahy, Jessica E. & Neupane, Binod, 2014. "Factors affecting public support for forest-based biorefineries: A comparison of mill towns and the general public in Maine, USA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 301-311.
    17. Mathews, John A., 2008. "Carbon-negative biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 940-945, March.
    18. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    19. Delshad, Ashlie B. & Raymond, Leigh & Sawicki, Vanessa & Wegener, Duane T., 2010. "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3414-3425, July.
    20. Saladini, Fabrizio & Patrizi, Nicoletta & Pulselli, Federico M. & Marchettini, Nadia & Bastianoni, Simone, 2016. "Guidelines for emergy evaluation of first, second and third generation biofuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 221-227.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carl Latkin & Lauren Dayton & Catelyn Coyle & Grace Yi & Da-In Lee & Abigail Winiker, 2021. "The Relationship between Social Norms, Avoidance, Future Orientation, and Willingness to Engage in Climate Change Advocacy Communications," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-14, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    2. Van Dael, Miet & Lizin, Sebastien & Swinnen, Gilbert & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Young people’s acceptance of bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 417-430.
    3. Shapiro, Matthew A. & Bolsen, Toby, 2019. "Korean perceptions of transboundary air pollution and domestic coal development: Two framing experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 333-342.
    4. Schillo, R. Sandra & Isabelle, Diane A. & Shakiba, Abtin, 2017. "Linking advanced biofuels policies with stakeholder interests: A method building on Quality Function Deployment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 126-137.
    5. Balogh, P. & Bai, A. & Popp, J. & Huzsvai, L. & Jobbágy, P., 2015. "Internet-orientated Hungarian car drivers’ knowledge and attitudes towards biofuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 17-26.
    6. Olson-Hazboun, Shawn K. & Howe, Peter D. & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2018. "The influence of extractive activities on public support for renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 117-126.
    7. Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Buessing, Marric & Kriner, Douglas L., 2016. "Geographic proximity to coal plants and U.S. public support for extending the Production Tax Credit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 299-307.
    8. Filimonau, Viachaslau & Högström, Michaela, 2017. "The attitudes of UK tourists to the use of biofuels in civil aviation: An exploratory study," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 84-94.
    9. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    10. Shapiro, Matthew A., 2020. "Next-generation battery research and development: Non-politicized science at the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    11. Charlotte Stead & Zia Wadud & Chris Nash & Hu Li, 2019. "Introduction of Biodiesel to Rail Transport: Lessons from the Road Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    12. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    13. Chen, Xiaoguang & Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri, 2014. "Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 241-257.
    14. Shen, Shiran Victoria & Cain, Bruce E. & Hui, Iris, 2019. "Public receptivity in China towards wind energy generators: A survey experimental approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 619-627.
    15. Klotz, Richard & Bento, Antonio M. & Landry, Joel R., 2013. "Economic Insights Required for Using Lifecycle Analysis for Policy Decisions," 2014 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 3-5, 2014, Philadelphia, PA 161654, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Kallas, Zein & Gil, José María, 2015. "Do the Spanish want biodiesel? A case study in the Catalan transport sector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 398-406.
    17. Loureiro, Maria L. & Labandeira, Xavier & Hanemann, Michael, 2013. "Transport and low-carbon fuel: A study of public preferences in Spain," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 126-133.
    18. JunJie Wu & Christian Langpap, 2015. "The Price and Welfare Effects of Biofuel Mandates and Subsidies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(1), pages 35-57, September.
    19. Antonio M. Bento, Richard Klotz, and Joel R. Landry, 2015. "Are there Carbon Savings from US Biofuel Policies? The Critical Importance of Accounting for Leakage in Land and Fuel Markets," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    20. Doumax-Tagliavini, Virginie & Sarasa, Cristina, 2018. "Looking towards policies supporting biofuels and technological change: Evidence from France," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 430-439.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:149:y:2021:i:c:s0301421520308090. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.