"And who pays for all this?" Why does climate policy cost so much?
Costs and benefits are perceived differently depending on people's ideology and partisan sympathies.
Political scientistIn recent years, we have seen states and institutions make promises, some more credible than others, about the need to address climate change. Rhetoric and level of concreteness aside, the proposed solutions face at least three major challenges. First, the benefits of climate policies are often intangible or only become apparent over a long period. Humans tend to respond better to recent events and underestimate future ones, whether good or bad. Second, the rise and strength of the far right and populist movements worldwide has brought climate issues to the forefront of the media. Citizen mobilizations against specific policies, door-to-door low-emission zones, are often fueled or co-opted by political protest movements. All of this erodes previously widely accepted agreements on climate change. For example, comparative surveys placed Spain among the regions with the lowest levels of climate skepticism (in Catalonia, it was almost negligible). In the most recent surveys, we have seen how the percentage of people who attribute climate change to both natural processes and human activity has grown from 27% (February 2023) to 35.7% (May 2025). "Hard" climate skepticism is still a minority view, but a significant portion of the population is beginning to have doubts about the origins of climate change.
Finally, climate policies often attempt to bring about significant changes in people's behavior. Thus, new taxes, the prioritization of environmental policies over more "traditional" ones, or the restriction of freedoms lead to what is known as a coordination problem. That is, public acquiescence is sought or imposed through sanctions, with the aim of having the costs tolerated and the benefits (intangible or collective) enjoyed.
The costs are perceived more than the benefits
The way in which costs and benefits (and their redistribution) affect support for climate policies has been a major question until now. Thanks to the ATTClimate project, developed at UPF, UAB, and UOC, we know a little more. Both in Catalonia and in the rest of Spain, the climate policies that receive the most support are limiting cruise ship traffic, converting streets into pedestrian zones, and closing coal-fired power plants. Conversely, two policies fail to gain traction: the ban on the sale of combustion engine cars by 2035 and a progressive tax on air travel. Other policies, such as expanding low-emission zones or banning polluting vehicles on days with high pollution levels, receive rather lukewarm support.
Aside from understanding policy prioritization, the data reveals another point of interest. Through various experiments, which emphasized either the costs or the benefits of each policy, a pattern emerges: referring to the costs of climate policies significantly reduces support for them. Conversely, emphasizing the benefits has only a slightly positive impact. Therefore, when new climate policies are debated in the public sphere, they often face a disadvantage, as the perceived costs are far more significant than the benefits. Furthermore, costs and benefits are perceived differently depending on ideology and political affiliation. Thus, Catalans aligned with the People's Party (PP) or Vox either fail or barely approve of almost all climate policies and react particularly negatively to bans (such as those on purchasing vehicles). In contrast, left-leaning voters strongly favor climate policies that would primarily affect wealthier segments of the population, such as limiting cruise ship traffic. However, their electorate is also divided, and mentioning the costs causes support to drop, sometimes significantly. In short, climate policies do not receive unanimous support even among left-leaning voters, and support only increases when emphasis is placed on the idea that the wealthiest will bear a greater cost.
When Josep Pla saw the unmistakable silhouette of Manhattan's skyscrapers, he seems to have exclaimed, "And who's paying for all this?" Climate policies face a similar question, and, as the data shows, we should add: "And what benefit will there be, and who will bear the majority of the costs?"
Amnesties around the world
While the amnesty related to the events of October 2017 has not yet been fully implemented, it is pertinent to ask how common amnesties are worldwide. The recently published 'Transitional Justice Assessment Tools' database provides this overview. Since 1970, a total of 897 amnesties have been granted in 137 different countries. The countries at the top of the list are the Philippines (31 amnesties), Sudan (29), and Chad and Syria (both with 24). The democratic country with the most approved amnesties is South Korea, with 12. Although many amnesties occur in contexts of conflict or transition (such as the one granted during the Spanish Transition), they are also common in democracies and more stable regimes. In these cases, political prisoners or exiles are usually the ones who benefit most.
