Different Countries, Common Support for Climate Change Mitigation: The Case of Germany and Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript focuses on a relevant issue regarding climate change by comparing two EU member states from the same perspective; therefore, it provides significant novelty. However, before publication, several modifications are needed; see my comments and suggestions below:
- The Introduction section shall be completely restructured and modified. Firstly, please add a detailed socio-economic background about the two countries, which contributes to defining the main social characteristics of the analyzed “systems”. Secondly, the current number of citations is quite limited; however, numerous statements can be found in the section without referred works. Please bridge this gap by involving and citing current papers to “defend” your statements. Thirdly, please rephrase the active sentences to passive ones. Finally, the paper has one author, but in several cases, “we” can be read in the manuscript: please correct these confusing parts.
- The methodology and the results are transparent: no further modifications are needed.
- In the Discussion section, there is no information about the limitations regarding the respondents. The author mentioned that significant differences could be found between the respondents' social status and the average values of the countries. It is an important limitation since elderly people and low-educated groups were not involved in the study, which can modify the final results. Please add comprehensive clarification about the role of this limitation regarding the analysis of the results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reading my manuscript and for the valid comments. The modifications I made to the article as you suggested are described below.
Kind Regards,
Zbigniew Bohdanowicz
The Introduction section shall be completely restructured and modified. Firstly, please add a detailed socio-economic background about the two countries, which contributes to defining the main social characteristics of the analyzed “systems”.
->>> The introduction was thoroughly modified and extended in this paper. It now consists of four parts - Background (lines 73-209), climate policy in EU (lines 211-232), Socio-economic background and climate policy in Germany and Poland (lines 233-282) and Factors influencing public support for CC mitigation (lines 285-335). Socio-economic background about Germany and Poland is in the section 1.3 of the Introduction (lines 233-282)
Secondly, the current number of citations is quite limited; however, numerous statements can be found in the section without referred works. Please bridge this gap by involving and citing current papers to “defend” your statements.
->>> Citations have been significantly expanded (there are now 69 references, there were 41). They mainly complement the introductory (lines 72-335) and methodological (lines 340-342; 417-418) parts of the article.
Thirdly, please rephrase the active sentences to passive ones. Finally, the paper has one author, but in several cases, “we” can be read in the manuscript: please correct these confusing parts.
->>> Thank you for these comments. These mistakes are corrected (word ‘we’ was replaced (lines 290, 293), also passive sentences are used instead of active ones (eg. lines 290, 293, 413)
The methodology and the results are transparent: no further modifications are needed.
->>> Thank you. However, I have added a paragraph describing respondents' evaluation of the questionnaire in terms of interest in the topic, clarity of questions, and length of the survey. The methodology section is also expanded to include a more detailed description of the evaluated policies, as this was a suggestion from another reviewer.
In the Discussion section, there is no information about the limitations regarding the respondents. The author mentioned that significant differences could be found between the respondents' social status and the average values of the countries. It is an important limitation since elderly people and low-educated groups were not involved in the study, which can modify the final results. Please add comprehensive clarification about the role of this limitation regarding the analysis of the results.
->>> Thank you for this valid comment. I have added a paragraph regarding this limitation in the discussion (lines 655-664) and in conclusions (lines 699-703).
Reviewer 2 Report
The literature review is very vague. Authors did not provide the background of the paper and main theories to which they referred. For me it is not clear how the scales and model were constructed for example CC or IPCC awareness only by one question? Authors applied regression analysis, but how the ordinal variables were evaluated. Furthermore in the regression analysis authors included more than 20 factors, is it logical? It is not clear whether the authors analysed the assumptions of the regression analysis. Where are reliability and validity analysis? How was evaluated the willingness to pay more for climate change?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reading my manuscript and for the valid comments. My comments and modifications I made to the article as you suggested are described below.
Kind Regards,
Zbigniew Bohdanowicz
The literature review is very vague. Authors did not provide the background of the paper and main theories to which they referred.
->>> The introductory section has been rewritten and significantly expanded. It now consists of four sections: background (lines 73-209), Climate policy in European Union (EU) (lines 212-232), Socio-economic background and climate policy in Germany and Poland (lines 234-282) and Factors influencing public support for CC mitigation (lines 285-335).
Citations have been significantly expanded (there are now 69 references, there were 41). They mainly complement the introductory (lines 72-335) and methodological (lines 340-342; 417-418) parts of the article.
For me it is not clear how the scales and model were constructed for example CC or IPCC awareness only by one question?
->>> The variables used in this study were selected based on the literature review described in Section 1.4 Factors influencing public support for CC mitigation (lines 285-335). Where possible, full scales that have been previously validated and are used in research studies (NEP scales, skepticism, CRT cognitive ability test) were used. Other questions were also based on questionnaires used in previous published research (Norms, Control, CC impact, Policy Effectiveness). For the Denial mechanism, the questions were based on qualitative research conducted by Kari Norgaard, and she was consulted on the content of the questions.
Awareness of climate change and the work of the IPCC were assessed with single questions, as in this case the subjective belief in one's own knowledge was measured, rather than objective knowledge of the topic.
Authors applied regression analysis, but how the ordinal variables were evaluated. Furthermore in the regression analysis authors included more than 20 factors, is it logical?
->>> For each factor that was measured by a the set of statements (e.g. NEP, skepticism, knowledge of CC causes and effects, awareness that climate is a public good, control, CRT, denial) the average score was used to generate a scale on which multiple linear regression was conducted. To the best of my knowledge, this is common practice in the social sciences.
It is not clear whether the authors analysed the assumptions of the regression analysis.
->>> Autocorrelation (Table 3, line 519) and collinearity statistics were checked. It was checked that correlations between variables mostly did not exceed the level of 0.5, only in a few cases they were higher, but not greater than 0.7 (correlations between the level of skepticism and the NEP scale, and skepticism and social norms; lines 526-529).
Where are reliability and validity analysis?
->>> As is described above, previously validated scales (NEP, Skepticism, CRT test) were used where possible. In other cases, questions used in previously published research were relied upon, and where questions were created from scratch, they were consulted with the author of the qualitative work on which they were based (Measurement Denial, based on the work of Kari Norgaard). Thus, care has been taken to ensure that the questions accurately measure what is intended.
How was evaluated the willingness to pay more for climate change?
->>> The description of this part of the study has been expanded and now presents in more detail the method of measurement and the reasons for choosing this approach (lines 428-464). An annex has also been added showing the exact wording of the descriptions and questions in this part of the survey (Annex 1, lines 736-788).
Reviewer 3 Report
Generally, the topic of the paper is interesting and up-to-date.
On the other hand, the author should work hard on the next version of the paper.
I have the following comments and suggestions:
1) The abstract is poor. The author should underline the main goal, the methodology, the key results in the abstract and depict his added value.
2) The Introduction part is poor. Regarding the Introduction, I have the following suggestions:
2a) I miss the overview of scientific studies in the field. Please add it to the Introduction or as a separate chapter.
2b) The paper focuses on Germany and Poland. I miss the overview of current climate policies (both EU and national) in these countries. It is important both for the Introduction part and for Discussion because some results are connected with the current policies (such as carbon taxes, support of RES etc.).
2c) The author omits the EU ETS system, trading with EUAs as a key policy instrument in the EU climate policy. The author should underline in the text, why this instrument is not covered in his methodology approach.
3) Chapter 2.4. - Research Design
The author should describe the process of selection of 3 policies used in the research: 1) support for the development of renewable energy, 2) a tax on CO2 emissions, and 3) enhancement of energy efficiency. Why these policies were selected? Why others were omitted (such as EU ETS)?
Then, the author writes that "at the beginning of the survey, respondents were given a short description of the current climate situation and read information describing the objectives and potential costs of three climate policies developed in the EU: 1) support for the development of renewable energy, 2) a tax on CO2 emissions, and 3) enhancement of energy efficiency." But I miss the information the respondents obtained. Please add it. It is important in connection with the discussion of the results.
Currently, there is no common EU carbon tax, the design of this tool presented to the respondents is important. This is similar also in the case of the other policy instruments.
4) Discussion
I have the comment connected with the policies: 1) support for the development of renewable energy, 2) a tax on CO2 emissions, and 3) enhancement of energy efficiency.
The author should specify the difference between the current policies in Germany and Poland and the new instruments connected with WTP.
For example, currently, there is no carbon tax in Germany and Poland. On the other hand, there is public support for the development of renewable energy. The author should specify the change in this policy instrument connected with WTP of respondents. It is not clear.
Regarding carbon tax, the author should comment policy approach of Germany in connection with environmental taxes, such as environmental tax reforms introduced in Germany in the last decades.
5) The author should discuss his results in connection with climate policy trends and specify recommendations for policymakers.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reading my manuscript and for the valid comments. My comments and modifications I made to the article as you suggested are described below.
Kind Regards,
Zbigniew Bohdanowicz
1) The abstract is poor. The author should underline the main goal, the methodology, the key results in the abstract and depict his added value.
->>> The abstract was rewritten as suggested (lines 7-21)
2) The Introduction part is poor. Regarding the Introduction, I have the following suggestions:
->>> The introductory section has been thoroughly rewritten and expanded as suggested
2a) I miss the overview of scientific studies in the field. Please add it to the Introduction or as a separate chapter.
->>> A paragraph describing international research on attitudes toward climate change and climate policy was added to the introductory section (lines 78-95). Literature was also added in the section describing the factors considered in the study (section 1.4, lines 285-335) and in the section 2.1, on assessing levels of support using WTP (lines 340-342).
2b) The paper focuses on Germany and Poland. I miss the overview of current climate policies (both EU and national) in these countries. It is important both for the Introduction part and for Discussion because some results are connected with the current policies (such as carbon taxes, support of RES etc.).
->>> The introductory section was supplemented by a section on climate policy in the EU (section 1.2, lines 212-232) and a section describing Socio-economic background and climate policy in Germany and Poland (section 1.3, lines 234-282).
The discussion of results and conclusions are also supplemented with references to climate policy (lines 568-572, 586-594; 605-621; 676-677; 688-693; 695-698).
2c) The author omits the EU ETS system, trading with EUAs as a key policy instrument in the EU climate policy. The author should underline in the text, why this instrument is not covered in his methodology approach.
->>> Thank you for pointing out the EU ETS system. The introductory section is completed with a description of the EU ETS (lines 220-232). In the methodology section, the reasons for choosing specific policies are discussed in more detail (lines 428-445) and an explanation is added as to why the EU ETS was not evaluated in the study (lines 445-450).
3) Chapter 2.4. - Research Design
The author should describe the process of selection of 3 policies used in the research: 1) support for the development of renewable energy, 2) a tax on CO2 emissions, and 3) enhancement of energy efficiency. Why these policies were selected? Why others were omitted (such as EU ETS)?
->>> A description was added with an explanation of why these three climate policies were selected (lines 428-446) and why the EU ETS was not evaluated (lines 446-450). The main reasons for selecting these policies are: the listing of these areas as key for effective decarbonization in the IPCC SR 1.5 report; the fact that two such measures are currently being implemented by the EU (renewables, energy efficiency) and the introduction of a carbon tax on individual consumption is currently under discussion; the fact that these solutions will have a direct or indirect impact on the financial situation of citizens (through higher taxes or higher commodity prices).
Then, the author writes that "at the beginning of the survey, respondents were given a short description of the current climate situation and read information describing the objectives and potential costs of three climate policies developed in the EU: 1) support for the development of renewable energy, 2) a tax on CO2 emissions, and 3) enhancement of energy efficiency." But I miss the information the respondents obtained. Please add it. It is important in connection with the discussion of the results.
Currently, there is no common EU carbon tax, the design of this tool presented to the respondents is important. This is similar also in the case of the other policy instruments.
->>> Thank you for this comment. The paragraph describing the WTP assessment process for climate policies has been expanded (lines 451-464), and Appendix 1 has been added to provide a full description of this phase of the study.
4) Discussion
I have the comment connected with the policies: 1) support for the development of renewable energy, 2) a tax on CO2 emissions, and 3) enhancement of energy efficiency.
The author should specify the difference between the current policies in Germany and Poland and the new instruments connected with WTP.
For example, currently, there is no carbon tax in Germany and Poland. On the other hand, there is public support for the development of renewable energy. The author should specify the change in this policy instrument connected with WTP of respondents. It is not clear.
->>> As described in the methodology section (lines 428-450), the study assumes that meeting ambitious EU emissions reduction targets will come at a cost. Meeting new, more ambitious objectives will require further investment in RES, stricter energy standards. Extension of the current EU ETS system with a carbon tax covering individual consumption is also being considered because of the new, more ambitious emission reduction targets.
It is assumed that regardless of the tools that will be chosen to achieve the climate goals, from the point of view of the EU citizen it is important at what cost these goals are achieved. Therefore, in the first step, the WTP for achieving climate policy goals is assessed, without identifying specific tools, and in the second step, the declared amount is divided among individual measures.
Regarding carbon tax, the author should comment policy approach of Germany in connection with environmental taxes, such as environmental tax reforms introduced in Germany in the last decades.
->>> Thank you for this valid comment. This is now covered in the new section in the Introduction, regarding socio-economic background and climate policy in Germany and Poland (section 1.3, lines 234-282).
5) The author should discuss his results in connection with climate policy trends and specify recommendations for policymakers.
->>> References to current EU climate policies are supplemented in the discussion (lines 568-572, 586-594; 605-621) and in the conclusions (lines 666-669; 676-677; 688-698).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author made significant changes in the manuscript following the reviewer's suggestions. The paper, therefore, has been improved largely; consequently, it is ready for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no additional comments.
