No trade for decarbonization: Public resistance to cross-border electricity and CO2-infrastructure

* Citizens across five North Sea countries (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK; N = 9,750) consistently rate cross-border electricity and CCS infrastructure projects more negatively than identical domestic projects, a robust "trade penalty". * The direction of opposition depends on the good being traded: for electricity, exporting attracts the strongest resistance; for CO2 storage, it is importing. Electricity is perceived as a valuable national resource, CO2 as foreign waste. * The trade penalty is not driven by fears of import dependence: respondents who value energy independence object most strongly to electricity exports, not imports. The underlying concern is national control over resources, not supply security. * Neither climate concern nor general support for international cooperation overrides the preference for domestic solutions. Citizens who see decarbonization as a national responsibility (88 percent of respondents) show the strongest trade penalty. * Expectations of concrete economic benefits, such as jobs or lower energy prices, improve acceptance of cross-border projects. This points to a communication lever that climate framing alone does not offer. * Policymakers should foreground domestic benefits, make the costs of purely national solutions visible, establish transparent rules for sharing costs and benefits across countries, and calibrate communication to each technology.