Cost sensitivity, partisan cues, and support for the Green New Deal

Opponents of climate policy proposals frequently ground their objections in terms of costs. However, it is unclear whether these objections are persuasive to individuals considering whether to support such programs. Not only do people have difficulties in understanding large numbers, partisans in particular may place more weight on the originator of a given proposal—supporting it if their own party proposed it, and opposing it otherwise. We test these dynamics using a survey experiment that varied the costs associated with real-world climate policy proposals attributed to each of the two major US political parties, compared to a control group where no cost was made salient. Our study allows us to disentangle the effects of cost perception and partisan identity on policy preferences. We find little evidence that respondents are systematically sensitive to program cost. Rather, we find that climate policy preferences are shaped by partisan identities, with respondents showing little sensitivity towards increasing costs. The results provide reason for skepticism that cost-based objections to climate spending programs are persuasive at scale, after accounting for partisan cue-taking.