Upstream, downstream: the importance of psychological framing for carbon emission reduction policies

It is well known that the language, or psychological frame, in which options are articulated can make a substantial difference to individuals' judgements or choices with regard to those options. Among proposed carbon reduction schemes, upstream approaches (e.g. 'cap and dividend', 'cap and share') and downstream approaches (e.g. personal carbon trading) are often framed in terms of the more familiar concepts of taxes and rations, respectively. Formation and implementation of carbon reduction policies may therefore benefit both from understanding the effect of, and harnessing the power of, psychological framing. In particular, since the 'tax' frame is silent about the recycling of revenue to the population, advocates of upstream approaches need to craft a powerful frame associated with the concept of a 'recycled tax'. Meanwhile, among the assumptions included in the 'rations' frame are that a crisis exists and that 'rations' ought not to be traded. Advocates of downstream approaches thus need to address public perceptions relating to acknowledging the existence of a crisis and the legitimacy of trading.