Out of breath, out of mind: Competing frames and public support for carbon taxation in Spain

Efforts to implement climate policies often face public resistance. This study, based on a pre-registered survey experiment in Spain, tests how different framings of carbon taxation, emphasizing costs, primary climate benefits, co-benefits, and their combinations, shape public support. Compared to a baseline with no additional information, cost-focused messages reduce support, while benefit frames increase it; co-benefits (cleaner air, better health) produce the largest increase, though in isolation this is not statistically distinguishable from the primary-benefit frame. When paired with cost information, co-benefit framing sustains support more effectively than primary climate benefits, suggesting that immediate, tangible outcomes resonate more strongly with the public than distant climate goals. A dictionary-based analysis of open-ended responses corroborates this interpretation: co-benefit and cost treatments activate frame-aligned language, whereas the primary benefits treatment does not. The study further reveals systematic heterogeneity in responses: cost information reduces support most among left-leaning and lower-income respondents, while co-benefit framing is more persuasive among center- and right-leaning and higher-income respondents. Together, these findings point to a modest but systematic role of framing in shaping attitudes toward carbon taxation, with implications for designing more publicly acceptable climate policies.