| Summary/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.
|