Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

International climate action requires shared responsibilities, yet countries disagree over costs allocations. Surveys in six countries (N=10852) examine public views on fair responsibility for burden-sharing, identifying three stable opinion groups with distinct ideological and attitudinal profiles.

Paper long abstract

Because greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts transcend national borders, meaningful efforts depend on countries agreeing on shared responsibilities, common goals, and long‑term commitments. However, national governments diverge on in their economic interests, historical responsibilities, and prioritization of climate action, leading to persistent disagreements over burden‑sharing, fairness, and the distribution of costs and benefits. Citizens’ beliefs about fairness, responsibility, and the acceptability of different climate strategies can shape domestic political incentives and ultimately influence states’ willingness to commit to international climate action. Despite this relevance, relatively few studies investigate public opinion of the global governance dimensions of climate policy, and even fewer have examined views on fairness, equity, and burden‑sharing specifically. Taking carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a case of emerging climate interventions, through nationally representative surveys in six countries in the Global South and North (N=10,852 respondents across the UK, Italy, Norway, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia), we investigated public fairness perceptions of six among the most discussed burden-sharing principles. Respondents reported different fairness assessments across the principles and with Latent Class Analysis analysis we identified three distinctly populated attitudinal groups, stable across countries: two with clearly articulated fairness judgements and a third characterized by greater uncertainty. A post-hoc descriptive exploration of the characteristics of the individuals show distinct class-specific ideological and attitudinal orientations, stable across contexts. The results provide new evidence on how publics understand fair global responsibility for emerging climate technologies, with implications for the design and legitimacy of international climate governance.