After the end of World War II, it took almost a decade for Britain to finally abolish rationing of everyday goods.
Although the war may have been almost 80 years ago, almost 40 percent of the public would now welcome the return of the ration book to help combat climate change.
Researchers from Uppsala University, Sweden, surveyed almost 9,000 participants from India, Brazil, Germany and the US.
Their responses showed that rationing fuel and “emissions-intensive” products such as meat is almost as widely accepted as raising taxes.
Lead author Oskar Lindgren, a PhD candidate at Uppsala University, says: ‘Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change. This could explain why support is quite high.’
Nearly 40 percent of people would accept a return to WWII-style fuel and meat rationing to combat climate change, according to a new study. In the photo: a ration book from the Ministry of Food from the last years of rationing
A survey of nearly 9,000 people from five continents found that support for rationing was broadly comparable to support for higher taxes on fuel and meat
If the world is to meet the climate change goals set out in the Paris Climate Agreement, governments around the world will need to take action to reduce consumption of carbon-intensive products such as fossil fuels.
Currently, most governments and researchers focus on ‘economic instruments’ such as taxing polluting products and subsidizing greener alternatives.
However, scientists believe that a fairer alternative might be to limit how much of these goods can be purchased.
Mr Lindgren says: ‘One advantage of rationing is that it can be perceived as fair if it is made independent of income.’
As in World War II, rationing ensures that everyone gets an equal share of limited resources, no matter how wealthy someone is.
As this graph shows, the researchers found that gender and income had only a small effect on whether people supported the policy. The biggest factors included how concerned people were about the environment and whether they drove a car every day
A total of 8,654 individuals from five continents were interviewed to compare the acceptability of rationing with the acceptability of taxation.
Each participant was asked to rate the policy on a scale of one to five, with one being strongly against and five being strongly in favor.
Overall, 38 percent of respondents said they would accept monthly limits on fuel purchases, compared to 39 percent who said they would accept higher fuel taxes.
Similarly, 33 percent of people said they would support monthly restrictions on meat purchases, compared to 44 percent who said they would support a higher tax on foods with a high climate impact.
Around the world, some forms of rationing are widely used to mitigate or limit the effects of climate change.
Support for meat rationing was lower in the US and Germany than in South Africa and India, where the measure received widespread support (stock image)
The researchers point out that some Chinese cities are rationing driving by allowing motorists to use the road only on certain days, as part of a plan to reduce pollution.
Similarly, fishing quotas ration the amount of fish that can be caught by fleets in protected areas of the ocean.
Even in Britain, banning hose lines during droughts is a common form of water rationing, helping to mitigate the effects of increasingly frequent and severe heat waves.
However, the researchers did not expect that broader rationing of food and fuel would receive similar support as higher taxes.
Co-author Dr Mikael Karlsson, also from Uppsala University, says: ‘What is most surprising is that there is hardly any difference in the acceptability between rationing and fossil fuel taxation.’
The researchers point out that in some Chinese cities, such as Beijing (pictured), fuel consumption is already being rationed indirectly by banning people from driving on certain days. This is intended to help reduce air pollution in the city.
In the US, women were significantly more likely to support fuel rationing, while people who expressed environmental concerns were the most likely to support any form of rationing.
The proportion of people who supported or opposed taxation and rationing varied from country to country, with lower and middle-income countries generally more supportive of rationing.
Of South African participants, 49 percent would accept some form of rationing, while 46 percent of Indian participants would.
Meanwhile, support for rationing in both the US and Germany was only 29 percent.
Similarly, people were more likely to support rationing if they were more concerned about environmental issues.
However, the researchers also found that taxing fuel and food could be an even more unpopular alternative.
Dr. Karlsson says: “In Germany, the share of people who are strongly opposed to fossil fuel taxes is actually higher than the share who are strongly opposed to fossil fuel rationing.”
In the US, 28 percent of people also said they strongly opposed meat or fuel rationing as a means to combat climate change.
Despite some opposition, the researchers emphasize that rationing can be a viable alternative to raising taxes.
Mr Lindgren added: ‘More research is now needed on attitudes towards rationing and the design of such policy instruments.
‘Many people seem willing to limit their consumption for climate mitigation purposes, as long as others do the same. These are encouraging findings.’
